View Full Version : Term 5 Judiciary


donsig
May 02, 2006, 06:12 PM
Welcome to the Civ4 DemoGame Judiciary for Term 5.

Chief Justice: donsig
Public Defender: Cyc
Judge Advocate: CivGeneral

Link to Constitution and code of laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=132270)

Link to Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=153321)

Court docket
The court docket shall be posted and maintained by the Chief Justice. The docket shall list all cases accepted by the court as well as the current status of each case. The court will decide only one case at a time, in the order listed on the docket. The Chief Justice sets the order of cases in the docket and can change this order at any time using his discretion.

Recusals

Recusal from a specific case is at the sole discretion of each justice. If a justice wishes to be recused from a specific case the President will be asked to appoint apro tempore justice for that specific case. The President's appointment is subject to confirmation by the remaining justices. It is not necessary for the Public Defender to recuse himself from Citizen Complaints accepted against him since he is the Public Defender after all. Likewise the Judge Advocate need not recuse himself from Citizen Complaints he files since he is the nation's prosecutor. If a Citizen Complaint is accepted against the Judge Advocate, the Chief Justice will assume the Judge Advocate's duies for that specific case. If a Citizen Complaint is accepted against the Judge Advocate will assume the duties of the Chief Justice for that case.

Judicial Reviews
Judicial Reviews are used to resolve questions of the law and to validate proposed amendments. A concurring opinion of at least two 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 in the court docket.

Reviews of a proposed law may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed law including all changes to made to, and deletions to be made from, existing laws; and a link to the discussion thread of the proposed law. 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. Reviews of proposed laws that meet these criteria will be added to the court docket by the Chief Justice.

Decisions or rulings on judicial reviews shall include answers to the question(s) posed (in the case of existing laws) or an indication that conflicts have or haven't been found with existing law (in cases of proposed laws). Concurring decisions or rulings by at least two justices will resolve a judicial review. Any justice can request clarification of another justice's decision or ruling.

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.

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 or Chief Justice 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 or Judge Advocate 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 or Judge Advocate 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]

Changes to Judicial Procedures
The Judicial Procedures may be changed at any time by a concurring decision of at least two justices.

Current Status: A full court is in session. :hammer:

donsig
May 02, 2006, 06:12 PM
Case #5-3: Proposed CoL amendment. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4069434&postcount=67)
Status: Case closed. The judiciary ruled 3-0 that the proposed amendment is not eligible for ratification.

Case #5-2: Judical Review requested by GeorgeOP regarding the 72 hour clause and its effect on appointments. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4008816&postcount=13) Status: Case closed. The judciciary ruled 3-0 that YES 72 hours must elapse from the time a call is made for applicants to a vacant office before an appointment can be made to the office.

Case #5-1: Confirmation of robboo as Secretary of State. Status: Appointment confirmed by all three justices, added to judicial log.

Nobody
May 02, 2006, 06:59 PM
Hi new judges, there was a lot of confusion at the end of last term. So i was just wondering what ever happened to striders JR. I think i made my ruling and wondering if you can point me in the directions of the rest. If it passed it should go to vote soon. if not then well it shouldnt. (not asking for a rant just a answer)


also off topic. Mr GVOTIAIP shouldnt you drop the IP yet? or do we need another city burning to get the point across.

donsig
May 02, 2006, 09:05 PM
I ruled that Strider's amendment was in conflict with the constitution. I do not think the CJ ruled on the matter.

Off topic. It is merely a hereditary title and one I'm quite proud of. No need to get worked up about it. :)

DaveShack
May 04, 2006, 02:56 AM
Appointments have been announced in the Presidential thread. CivGeneral has been appointed as Judge Advocate. Per the CoL, the Judiciary needs to confirm the appointment of robboo as Secretary of State. His resignation from the governorship will be effective upon confirmation.

The governor appointments will be interesting. I don't see anything in the CoL which defines who organizes the Governor's Council, and would appreciate an informal opinion from the court regarding that, either a confirmation that it is not specified, or help finding where it is specified. If it's not specified, then I will assume it falls under the blanket "anything not specified goes to the President" rule. It will be helpful to the game if this is the case. ;)

donsig
May 04, 2006, 04:28 PM
I would like to welcome CivGeneral as our the newly appointed Judge Advocate. :)

I would also like tp welcome Cyc, our Public Defender. It is good to see you on the bench again! :cool:

Time to get to work guys! Please note I have updated the first post of this thread with the judicial procedures for this term. I know in the past these procedures were not posted until agreed upon by all justices but I thought it best to get things up and running and IIRC I am authorized (as CJ) to set court procedures. Please also note that the posted procedures can be changed if two justices agree to a proposed change.

Our first case has been added to the docket and I encourage all justices to post their ruling on this matter without delay. Since it is a routine case I don't think it is necessary for us to confer on it.

I would also direct my fellow justices's attention to our President's informal question. I have not added it to the docket since it is an informal question. Please respond if you have an answer. Citizen's are also invited to post their thoughts on this question if they have relevent information.

Cyc
May 04, 2006, 05:09 PM
Thank you honorable Chief Justice donsig for the warm welcome. It is an honor to serve with you and CivGeneral on this bench. May our rulings be just and swift.

Cyc
May 04, 2006, 05:12 PM
Case # 5-1: The Public Defender's Office confirms the appointment of robboo to the Office of Secretary of State. It is felt this is a well deserved appointment.

Cyc
May 04, 2006, 05:22 PM
In answer to DaveShack's informal question, it is apparent there is no easy answer.

It is mentioned that the Secretary of the Interior would organize the Governor's Council if one were not formed (by asking for interested volunteers), but I'm going to have to re-read the passage to see if this applies when other Governor's exist. If the SoI would not be the appropriate solution, then I believe the President's involvement would be called for.

CivGeneral
May 04, 2006, 05:33 PM
Case # 5-1: The Public Defender's Office confirms the appointment of robboo to the Office of Secretary of State. It is felt this is a well deserved appointment.
The Judge Advocate confirms and blesses the appointment of robboo to the Office of Secretary of State http://s89908203.onlinehome.us/smiles/priest.gif. I feel that robboo is well prepared to be the SoS :).

Case # 5-1: (Tally)
Chief Justice: Approves appointment
Judge Advocate: Approves appointment
Public Defender: Approves appointment

donsig
May 04, 2006, 06:01 PM
The office of Secretary of State was vacant as no one accepted a nomination to run for that office. The President called for applicants and robboo was the only citizen who expressed interest within 72 hours. Therefore I vote to confirm the appointment of robboo as Secretary of State.

robboo
May 04, 2006, 06:11 PM
The way you wrote that donsig..makes me wonder if that is a half hearted confirmation.

Thanks guys for making this quick.

GeorgeOP
May 04, 2006, 06:32 PM
As citizen of this fair contry I request a Judicial Review and interpretation of Section 8CIIIB and 8CIV (A and B). There is confusion in our populace on what those words mean. I would like the court to rule what should be the official interpretation.
Section 8
C) Vacancies
III Cabinet Vacancies
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.
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.
Does this mean that there must be 72 hours between the request for aplications and the appointment of officials, or does the 72 hour wait only apply for people who want a second job? I don't want any changes made to our government now, I just want an offical rulling going forward. This should effect no one and should not result in a recusal.

donsig
May 04, 2006, 09:36 PM
The way you wrote that donsig..makes me wonder if that is a half hearted confirmation.

It's not. That's just my official legal-businesslike voice. One of the main reasons I like being on the judiciary is I get to use that voice :)

I am quite happy to see you in the post since you have been very active for a few terms. I see you've also been invoved in your first controversy (war plan approval) so you've earned your wings. :goodjob:

The governor appointments will be interesting. I don't see anything in the CoL which defines who organizes the Governor's Council, and would appreciate an informal opinion from the court regarding that, either a confirmation that it is not specified, or help finding where it is specified.

My instinct tells me that it would be up to the members of the council to organize themselves. This is consistent with other offices - including multi-person groups (like the judiciary) - setting their own procedures. Cyc has pointed out that the MoI can organize the council in certain situations. I'd like to hear if Cyc's further reading confirms his initial opinion.

donsig
May 04, 2006, 09:49 PM
GeorgeOP's request for a judicial review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4008816&postcount=13) is found to have merit and has been added to the docket (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4000725&postcount=2).

I invite any and all interested citizens to post any legal briefs regarding this case here in the judicial thread. Please do not use this as an invitation to discuss the case here. If you have a viewpoint you wish the court to consider please feel free to present it here in one post. If you want to update your brief please edit the post you make rather than making a new post to add a point or two.

I would llike to refer everyone (including the PD and JA) to the ruling I posted on this matter last term. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3990697&postcount=41) That JR was never completed.

I would like to ask that the justices confer with each other on this JR before posting any rulings. In the past justices have communicated through chats or private messages concerning pending JRs. This is a good practice as it allows us to see legal points we may have missed and gives the court a better chance of reaching a unanimous decision.

DaveShack
May 04, 2006, 10:39 PM
I invite any and all interested citizens to post any legal briefs regarding this case here in the judicial thread.

I would like to repost my semantics argument on the so-called 72 hour rule for appointments. Yes, I know the CJ is well aware of this argument, but the other two justices may not be.

As for objectivity on the matter, I'm using English grammar and semantics, and logic, to interpret what I wrote according to the rules of the language.

Let's take an example and work it through. The same logic applies to every place this 72 hours appears in the relevant law.

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.

The sentence in blue filters the people who can apply for a vacant position to include only those people who do not have an office. This is the independent condition, defining what happens if no other modifiers are applied.

The portion in red defines a 1st dependent condition, that no person who does not hold a position contacts the President. The magenta portion further restricts the red portion, by placing a time delimiter. Together, the red and magenta parts modify the blue part, setting the conditions under which the restriction of "do not currently hold office" is lifted.

The black part is the condition which results if the red + magenta conditions become effective, overriding the blue restriction.

Now, I have just broken down the law as written, using the semantic rules of English, in this case the canonical method of dividing paragraphs, sentences, and phrases into independent and dependent parts. Once the law is parsed correctly, it is clear that the 72 hours is a time modifier on who can apply, and not on when the appointment can be made. In fact, the law itself does not specify either a minimum or a maximum time for an appointment to be made.

If you try to break down the example using this method to isolate the 72 hours and thereby to show that it applies to the last part in black, you will find that extraneous bits remain which are not part of any other construct.

DaveShack
May 08, 2006, 02:25 PM
:old: wakes from nap... finds himself in the spectator area of the courtroom

Wow, it sure got quiet in here. [checks ear trumpet for mice and cleans glasses with the last grime-free spot on a mostly dirty rag]

Nope, nobody here... guess I'll just leave a note. [Tacks a short note to the bench using the CJs hammer (gavel) and a nail conveniently left behind by the BW Builders]

Dear Justices, hope your "deliberations" haven't been too strenuous. I'll be down the street getting a :beer: while I wait. Don't be too long or the only thing left will be the :coffee:.

Good thing that Strider kid didn't manage to get his 3 day absence rule passed, or we'd be sending out search parties. :lol:

Cyc
May 09, 2006, 12:59 PM
:eek: Whoa! That's some explaination, DS! Although I didn't need the grammar lesson, as I understood the passage the first time around (even without coffee).

But even with the lesson :crazyeye:, the law still seems pretty clear. I will send the other jurors a PM (as the CJ has requested) and post a ruling.

CJ donsig, in answer to your other request, the blurb about the MoI organizing the Council still appears a little confusing, but my initial statement was made because of lack of time, not comprehension. Still, now it appears that the Governors are negligent in their duties, therefore allowing the MoI his opportunity for organizing. BUT, in my re-read of the law, I tend to think the situation it describes is one in which there are no Governors, not one in which the Governors are too confused to appoint one of their one to post a Council thread. ;)

EDIT: PMs sent!

CivGeneral
May 09, 2006, 01:42 PM
Wow, it sure got quiet in here. [checks ear trumpet for mice and cleans glasses with the last grime-free spot on a mostly dirty rag]

Be paitent Mr. President, some of us have to give this much thought to put into this issue :). I have sent PMs to my Judicary Couleuges (spelling?) about my viewpoints on this issue. :).

DaveShack
May 09, 2006, 06:15 PM
:eek: Whoa! That's some explaination, DS! Although I didn't need the grammar lesson, as I understood the passage the first time around (even without coffee).


I didn't expect everyone to need the explanation, just a certain one who claims to not understand it. ;)

robboo
May 11, 2006, 09:38 PM
Mr. CJ

Could you start an absence investigation into our censor. It has been 7 days since his last apearance according to his profile. There are currently many polls that need his attention. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

ice2k4
May 12, 2006, 08:10 AM
Chief Justice sir,

Is it possible when can get an investigation on the Minister of the Interior (appointed by president) GolablOpressor. He has not made a thread for his office, and when I checked, his last post in any demogame forum is April 30th. I don't see a post by him in the abscence registry either. Thank you in advance for your concern.

-Ice2k4 of Auda City, Governor

donsig
May 12, 2006, 05:03 PM
Mr. CJ

Could you start an absence investigation into our censor. It has been 7 days since his last apearance according to his profile. There are currently many polls that need his attention. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Chief Justice sir,

Is it possible when can get an investigation on the Minister of the Interior (appointed by president) GolablOpressor. He has not made a thread for his office, and when I checked, his last post in any demogame forum is April 30th. I don't see a post by him in the abscence registry either. Thank you in advance for your concern.

-Ice2k4 of Auda City, Governor

As far as I can tell there is nothing in our constitution or code of laws guiding us as to how to handle absences. There is nothing in our current judicial procedures concerning absence investigations. (That section was removed as it had no legal basis.) The simple disappearance of an official does not render the office vacant. I would remind citizens and officials alike that impeachment (recall) is generally an option. Not fulfilling the appointed duties of an office (for whatever reason) would seem an appropriate use of our impeachment procedure. This would put the onus on our citiezens to decide if an office has been abandoned. The judiciary be put into a position of deciding whether an office has been abandoned.

robboo
May 12, 2006, 05:26 PM
dumb question...what happened to the 7 day rule that was used ealier in this game. it was against on of our judges..verra( spelling? ) but she turned out to be around. Also it was used on Alphawolf...

ice2k4
May 12, 2006, 06:26 PM
Well, without the MoI, I took decisions into my own hands on what to build in Auda City. I don't care much if the MoI is gone, but when he comes back, I don't want to be taking flak.

(I changed build queue from barracks to granary.)

donsig
May 12, 2006, 07:24 PM
dumb question...what happened to the 7 day rule that was used ealier in this game. it was against on of our judges..verra( spelling? ) but she turned out to be around. Also it was used on Alphawolf...

[winces at the sound of the name of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named]

The Absence Investigation that you refer to was a part of the judicial procedures of previous terms. In reviewing our constitution and code of laws before adopting judicial procedures for this term I realized there is no law (or rule) in place to support a judicial absence investigation. I therefore left that out of this term's judicial procedures.

ice2k4
May 12, 2006, 09:20 PM
No arguement here. Since the censor is not around, and the CoL does not specify who should post an impeachment poll, I'm starting one now for the MoI.

donsig
May 12, 2006, 09:31 PM
No arguement here. Since the censor is not around, and the CoL does not specify who should post an impeachment poll, I'm starting one now for the MoI.

I think any citizen (or official) can post an impeachment poll.

DaveShack
May 13, 2006, 01:09 AM
Evidently someone messed up when drafting the omnibus amendment for vacancies, because the 7 day rule was dropped by that amendment.

DaveShack
May 13, 2006, 01:12 AM
It has now been 8 days since case 5-2 was added to the docket. Does the court plan to rule this term, or leave it for yet another new Judiciary to try to answer?

donsig
May 13, 2006, 06:14 PM
The original question put before the court in this case is:

Does this mean that there must be 72 hours between the request for aplications and the appointment of officials, or does the 72 hour wait only apply for people who want a second job?

Section 8.C of our Code of Laws is pertinent. I will repost here part of the ruling I made on this same question last term:

Again, only subsections III, IV and V (dealing with cabinet, gubernatorial and judicial vacancies respectively) mention a 72 hour period. It must be assumed that this period was included to give citizens ample time to respond to the required request. Therefore, the President or Governor's Council does indeed have to wait for the 72 hour period to elapse before making an appointment.

It is my ruling that YES, there must be 72 hours between the request for aplications and the appointment of officials regardless of who is appointed.

donsig
Chief Justice

PS: I urge the JA and PD to post their respective rulings on this case as soon as possible.

CivGeneral
May 14, 2006, 09:43 AM
Thinking about this hard for a moment

DaveShack
May 14, 2006, 01:49 PM
Fine, I'm not going to appoint anyone else this term. In fact, I think I'll exercize the Presidential perogrative of playing all turns myself, and schedule the next play session for May 30th.

[Edit]
Explanation: A correct answer in disagreement with my position would be OK. An answer that you think the law doesn't agree with what the author intended (e.g. the language is incorrect because we meant there to be a 3 day waiting period) would be OK. But an incorrect answer which breaks the rules of the language is never acceptable. I won't allow you to do that under any circumstances. And don't give me a line of bull about there being two correct ways to read this law. One is right and the other is wrong.

Since I can't make you rule the way it should be ruled, I'll just make the rule immaterial by ensuring it never goes into effect

CivGeneral
May 14, 2006, 05:38 PM
Does this mean that there must be 72 hours between the request for aplications and the appointment of officials, or does the 72 hour wait only apply for people who want a second job?

I have gone back and I have thought about this very very hard on this one.

I looked into section 8, paragraphs III, IV and V. And I have came to a conclusion that Yes there should be 72 hours between the request for applicants and the appointment of officals before the President can eather find a citizen who is qualified in the president's view to appoint if there are no applicants or chose from the applicants to apoint. In otherwords, Yes, it means that there must be 72 hours between the call of applicants (request for applicants) and the appointment officals. However it would not apply for people in search of a second job.

Simply stated. My answers to the following:
Question 1: Yes
Question 2: No

donsig
May 14, 2006, 05:40 PM
I have gone back and I have thought about this very very hard on this one.

I looked into section 8, paragraphs III, IV and V. And I have came to a conclusion that Yes there should be 72 hours between the request for applicants and the appointment of officals before the President can eather find a citizen who is qualified in the president's view to appoint if there are no applicants or chose from the applicants to apoint. In otherwords, Yes, it means that there must be 72 hours between the call of applicants (request for applicants) and the appointment officals. However it would not apply for people in search of a second job.

Thank you for posting your decision on this case. Just waiting on Cyc's decision.

DaveShack
May 16, 2006, 03:55 PM
[quote=CivGeneralHowever it would not apply for people in search of a second job.[/quote]

This is very confusing to me. The 72 hours does not apply to people who are in search of a 2nd job, but it does apply to people who don't have a job?

The clarification was less clear than the original.

CivGeneral
May 16, 2006, 04:07 PM
This is very confusing to me. The 72 hours does not apply to people who are in search of a 2nd job, but it does apply to people who don't have a job?

The clarification was less clear than the original.
Let me clear this up. I admit that the question is confusing but here is my take on the subject.

I feel that the 72 hours do apply to both people in search of a second job as well as people who dont have a second job. I'll edit my previous post to reflect uppon that.

Also, please dont get snippy (Though this is just a general gut feeling from me with your stance against the Judicary as well as the tone I interperated) at me since I myself am trying to untangle the whole complex issue :(.

Cyc
May 16, 2006, 04:10 PM
Does this mean that there must be 72 hours between the request for aplications and the appointment of officials, or does the 72 hour wait only apply for people who want a second job?
Ok, I'm back. Sorry gentlemen, I've been busy at work.

I'm not real pleased with the wording of this question. It seems a pretty vague request for the definition of law that is rarely used and doesn't make a big dent into the meat of things. If there had been more of a discussion of the issue, or perhaps we could have gotten the question reworded, I feel this could have been handled better. But let us flounder here and use more words than necessary to define this impasse.

DaveShack's explanation of the situation was spot on. No bout adoubt it. This passage is not only a lightweight law, but it is also easily understood. A 72 hour period is required to allow any qualified citizen to apply for the position. This 72 hours is a safety buffer, allowing even the slowest of us an attempt at getting appointed to a position we desire. It also allows the President or Governor (whoever) time to mull over their decision prior to appointing someone. It's a needed and useful time period that's intent is obvious. The wording in this passage clearly states it's purpose.

So the answer to the first part of the question is YES, and the answer to the second part of the question is NO. And never the twain shall meet.

CivGeneral
May 16, 2006, 04:17 PM
Ok, I'm back. Sorry gentlemen, I've been busy at work.
Nice to see you back :D


I'm not real pleased with the wording of this question. It seems a pretty vague request for the definition of law that is rarely used and doesn't make a big dent into the meat of things. If there had been more of a discussion of the issue, or perhaps we could have gotten the question reworded, I feel this could have been handled better. But let us flounder here and use more words than necessary to define this impasse.
I agree, I admit that I had to sit down and figure it out. Perhaps the wording of his question could have been placed forward in a better form.

DaveShack
May 16, 2006, 04:43 PM
DaveShack's explanation of the situation was spot on.

:lol:

All three of you disagreed with my explanation, don't see why you think it is spot on.

Suppose I already know who is going to be appointed, and the request for applicants is only a formality? Why then wait 3 days? The only way it's going to change who gets appointed is if I want to appoint someone who already has a position.

donsig
May 16, 2006, 05:03 PM
Suppose I already know who is going to be appointed, and the request for applicants is only a formality? Why then wait 3 days? The only way it's going to change who gets appointed is if I want to appoint someone who already has a position.

Let's go further and ask why you'd even put out a call for appplicants in that case?

It is not the job of the judiciary to decide if a given law makes sense. It is our job to interpret laws whose wording is questionable or to see if proposed laws conflict with the constitution or laws already in place. We do not have authority to strike down laws that are bad unless they are bad AND unconstitutional. Likewise it is our duty to strike down even good laws that are unconstitutional. The good part of all this is the judiciary does not have to be the last word on this or any other subject. Our citizens hold the power to change the laws to reflect the rules they want to play by.

I would like to thank the JA and PD and all interested citizens who participated in this judicial review. This case is closed and will be added to the judicial log. :hammer:

DaveShack
May 16, 2006, 05:34 PM
I would like to thank the JA and PD and all interested citizens who participated in this judicial review. This case is closed and will be added to the judicial log. :hammer:

I would like to thank the court for ruling incorrectly.

You decided 3 days applies because you want it to apply, not because that's what the law says.

I hereby file a CC against all three justices for violating Constitution Article F.3. Since none of the current justices can be expected to fairly decide whether this a CC against themselves has merit, it can sit there, unhandled, until the elections.

StrategyDoRk
May 16, 2006, 06:49 PM
Answered my own question...

CivGeneral
May 16, 2006, 07:05 PM
I hereby file a CC against all three justices for violating Constitution Article F.3. Since none of the current justices can be expected to fairly decide whether this a CC against themselves has merit, it can sit there, unhandled, until the elections.
Kind of going a bit extrime, but isint this a bit drastic. I mean I have done to the best of my abilities on how to interperate this law. I personaly felt that the 72 hour limit does not apply to seekers of second jobs because they would be considered to be on pair with appicants w/o a job.

However I felt that it is not fair to lump me along with the Vendetta between you and Donsig :(.

donsig
May 16, 2006, 07:28 PM
I hereby file a CC against all three justices for violating Constitution Article F.3. Since none of the current justices can be expected to fairly decide whether this a CC against themselves has merit, it can sit there, unhandled, until the elections.

Well, we've already had a CJ in this game decide whether his own appointment was valid. Everyone thought he was quite capable of deciding that fairly. Are you saying Cyc, CivGeneral and myself are not capable of deciding fairly? I guess we could have a poll and ask the citizens.

I don't see how this has merit. If you want to wait till next term to file a CC that's your perogative. I was quite willing to run for CJ against you in the last election and see no reason to run from that match up next term. While we wait a week or so for the contest you might want to step back and try reading the passage from the point of view of someone who didn't write it and can't read that person's mind. You just might see how reasonable the judiciary's interpretation is.

DaveShack
May 16, 2006, 10:00 PM
Kind of going a bit extrime, but isint this a bit drastic. I mean I have done to the best of my abilities on how to interperate this law. I personaly felt that the 72 hour limit does not apply to seekers of second jobs because they would be considered to be on pair with appicants w/o a job.

However I felt that it is not fair to lump me along with the Vendetta between you and Donsig :(.

Your ruling says that 72 hours must pass between the call for applicants and the appointment.

The language of the law says that the appointment must be delayed for 72 hours if and only if the only applicants are people who already have positions.

Now you say you didn't want the 72 hours to apply to people asking for a 2nd job, which would seem to me to mean that you're saying someone with a job could be appointed immediately but someone with no job has to wait 72 hours to be appointed??

For the record, my disagreement is with the interpretation. It does not matter in the slightest who makes that interpretation. Anyone who says the 72 hours applies to the case where someone without an office applies for the job is wrong -- there is absolutely no gramattically and semantically correct reading of this particular rule which can lead to that conclusion. I don't feel like posting a c.v. here as evidence that I know absolute English when I see it, if you would like to pledge secrecy via PM I might be persuaded to give you a web search. Cyc even said he thought I was right about how to analyze the law, and then ruled against that analysis, something that in my mind can only be explained if the motive was to ensure my interpretation doesn't "win".

The attitude that the Judiciary is infallible and the only set of people who can interpret the rules is the root of the problem. Donsig might even agree with me, but if he did he wouldn't be able to reverse a ruling because it would look like the Court caved in to a citizen. Curufinwe refused to step aside in the question of Nobody's appointment, and then Donsig refused to step aside in the JR that he initiatied, both incidents resulted from the same expectation that Justices have a mystical infallibility that can never be allowed to be challenged.

I want nothing more than to do my duty to the game without having my virtual hands tied by made up rules.

DaveShack
May 16, 2006, 10:13 PM
While we wait a week or so for the contest you might want to step back and try reading the passage from the point of view of someone who didn't write it and can't read that person's mind. You just might see how reasonable the judiciary's interpretation is.

You don't understand my previous post then.

I took off the "writer" hat and put on the "professor" hat for that post (not that I'm actually a professor, I just play one in the DG ;) ). I did exactly what you suggested, reading the passage and applying the rules under which English is written. My degree is Comp Sci, but my undergrad studies included linguistics, and my name appears on a whole slew of legal documents, most of which I helped write. Part of my job is writing specifications for others to follow.

If there were a mistake in that rule, where it did mean what you said it means, then I would admit that. If you carefully look at my previous posting record you will see that I freely admit mistakes, when they actually are mistakes. I even let others have their way, sometimes, when a gray area is present, especially in an area which doesn't actually matter. This time I'm not wrong, and it is an area which actually does matter.

I would have run against you, but we wouldn't have had a President and there were no likely candidates even for an appointment. I had to choose between eliminating a known problem and creating an even bigger unknown, or avoiding the unknown and hoping the known problem wouldn't be too big.

ice2k4
May 17, 2006, 08:10 AM
I haven't read much, and I can't say much on this. But why must we interperet the law? The reason we interpret the law in RL is because we don't have the guys standing next to us, alive, who wrote the law. In the demogame however, the people who wrote the law, are still here, and if they meant something, and we written slightly unclearly, shouldn't we just ask them???

dutchfire
May 17, 2006, 09:31 AM
why don't we change the law if the law is wrong?
Donsig will be happy, and Dave will be happy

CivGeneral
May 17, 2006, 02:22 PM
Your ruling says that 72 hours must pass between the call for applicants and the appointment.

The language of the law says that the appointment must be delayed for 72 hours if and only if the only applicants are people who already have positions.

Now you say you didn't want the 72 hours to apply to people asking for a 2nd job, which would seem to me to mean that you're saying someone with a job could be appointed immediately but someone with no job has to wait 72 hours to be appointed??

My gut instincts for the ruleing is that the 72 hour would still apply to people who are seeking a second job. But then I thought, if the person resigns from that post, would the same person also be placed back into the pool of potential applicants. At first I did not thought that the 72 hour would not apply to the seeker seeking a second job, but then I came to a realization after much thought that the 72 hour will still apply to the applicant seeking a second job because that applicant had resigned his previous post and thus is placed back into the pool of potential applicants.

After this much realization, yesterday I had a chance to change my ruleing on that but I was already quoted by Donsig so I had leave the post alone. DaveShack, I do sincearly apologise for not making a swift change in my ruleing and do wished that you dont hold it against me. Were all humans, were not machines.

I do now wish to change my ruleing that "yes, the 72 hour still applys to the applicant for a second job".

Cyc
May 17, 2006, 03:28 PM
Let's take an example and work it through. The same logic applies to every place this 72 hours appears in the relevant law.

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.

The sentence in blue filters the people who can apply for a vacant position to include only those people who do not have an office. This is the independent condition, defining what happens if no other modifiers are applied.
Exactly, this is absolutely correct. The President must put out a request for interested citizens who do not hold offfice.

The portion in red defines a 1st dependent condition, that no person who does not hold a position contacts the President. The magenta portion further restricts the red portion, by placing a time delimiter. Together, the red and magenta parts modify the blue part, setting the conditions under which the restriction of "do not currently hold office" is lifted.
Exactly, this is absolutely correct. The red and magenta modify the blue, setting the conditions under which the restriction is lifted.

The black part is the condition which results if the red + magenta conditions become effective, overriding the blue restriction.

Now, I have just broken down the law as written, using the semantic rules of English, in this case the canonical method of dividing paragraphs, sentences, and phrases into independent and dependent parts. Once the law is parsed correctly, it is clear that the 72 hours is a time modifier on (who can apply), and not on when the appointment can be made. In fact, the law itself does not specify either a minimum or a maximum time for an appointment to be made.
Exactly, this is absolutely correct. Now let's ask the important question. During this 72 hour period that the President must initiate and monitor, Joe Newbie finally works up the nerve to apply for the position. Joe Newbie has been a participant in many discussions and Turn Chats, but has never held a position. Our wonderous President has decided to break the law, and appoint his favored friend to the position on day one (1) of the 72 hour waiting period. Joe Newbie, not seeing this announcement applies on day two (2).
Our wonderous President says "Too late! I've already got it covered, go away!". Well Joe Newbie files a CC against the President, and someone else files a JR about this mishap. Guess who the Judiciary is going to side with. Not the guy who thinks he knows what the law says, but with the law.

If you try to break down the example using this method to isolate the 72 hours and thereby to show that it applies to the last part in black, you will find that extraneous bits remain which are not part of any other construct.
Give it up, DS ;)

Oh, and by the way, this childish thing you have going about who is against you and who is not is total rubbish. I was agreeing with your explanation. It is correct. It's you who don't understand. I was supporting you unbeknownst in your misguided interpretation.

donsig
May 17, 2006, 05:37 PM
The language of the law says that the appointment must be delayed for 72 hours if and only if the only applicants are people who already have positions.

If the law actually said that we never would have had a JR on the issue. I'm not going to quote the law again (don't have time) but the words if and only if are not in the law.

The attitude that the Judiciary is infallible and the only set of people who can interpret the rules is the root of the problem. Donsig might even agree with me, but if he did he wouldn't be able to reverse a ruling because it would look like the Court caved in to a citizen.

I would not change this ruling. I believe it to be correct. I do not think the judiciary is infallible (especially when I'm on it) any more than I think the President is infallible. But within our system we have decidied to give the judiciary authority to hand down a legally binding decision on matters of controversy. As I said earlier, it is not the only means available for resolving such issues nor does it have to be the final word. Our citizens hold the power to change the law. Whether they choose to do so or not is not up to the judiciary.

DaveShack
May 17, 2006, 05:49 PM
In fact, the law itself does not specify either a minimum or a maximum time for an appointment to be made.



DaveShack's explanation of the situation was spot on. No bout adoubt it. This passage is not only a lightweight law, but it is also easily understood. A 72 hour period is required to allow any qualified citizen to apply for the position. This 72 hours is a safety buffer, allowing even the slowest of us an attempt at getting appointed to a position we desire. It also allows the President or Governor (whoever) time to mull over their decision prior to appointing someone. It's a needed and useful time period that's intent is obvious. The wording in this passage clearly states it's purpose.



Exactly, this is absolutely correct.


These quotes do not add up.


Now let's ask the important question. During this 72 hour period that the President must initiate and monitor, Joe Newbie finally works up the nerve to apply for the position. Joe Newbie has been a participant in many discussions and Turn Chats, but has never held a position. Our wonderous President has decided to break the law, and appoint his favored friend to the position on day one (1) of the 72 hour waiting period. Joe Newbie, not seeing this announcement applies on day two (2).
Our wonderous President says "Too late! I've already got it covered, go away!".


A good President will have picked Joe anyway. That's what I would do.

A bad President, the one we need protection from, won't care. He'll wait 3 days and then appoint the favorite friend anyway, if that friend doesn't have a position. If the friend does have a position already, and the President appoints before waiting for someone without a position to apply for, I'll CC him myself, we won't need to wait for Joe to do it.

Take a more realistic example for our situation. There is a vacancy right now, and two complete newbies apply within the first 10 minutes of the vacancy. The President wants to give a newbie a chance and already knows one of the two is good material for the job, so wants to appoint one. We need that office filled, there are things that only that individual can do which need to be done right now. With this unreasonable restriction we're stuck for 3 days.

We are protected from having existing office holders favored against those without. This is what the law was written for, it's what the law says, and it's exactly what the game needs.

donsig
May 17, 2006, 07:02 PM
Take a more realistic example for our situation. There is a vacancy right now, and two complete newbies apply within the first 10 minutes of the vacancy. The President wants to give a newbie a chance and already knows one of the two is good material for the job, so wants to appoint one. We need that office filled, there are things that only that individual can do which need to be done right now. With this unreasonable restriction we're stuck for 3 days.

What needs to be done in this game that only one person, one office holder can do? We certainly don't need an official to start a discussion or post a poll. Granted, we need officials to post game play instructions. Does the DP ever have to stop a game play session because an instruction is not posted? Or is the DP free to make any needed decisions as they arise? I find it difficult to believe we cannot conduct business (play the save) if we are missing an officer or three.

robboo
May 17, 2006, 08:01 PM
donsig....that depends...Does the DP have the authority to post a referedum, like I did which you then said was illegal? Otherwise the DP can declare war or peace without considering the citizens if we follow your premise that they can make decisions without orders. I find this distrubing since you preach about the power belonging to the citizens and then you say this.

Consider this example...I am SoW and DP, there is no SoS or censor. So I start the save and declare War or Peace whihc according to your post I am entitled to do since there are no instructions posted. The DP should stop play if somethign comes up thats needs citizen input..I am shocked you would say otherwise. So much for you being a citizen rights advocate, you just ALWAYS chose the minority opinion to start trouble.

Black_Hole
May 17, 2006, 08:44 PM
If I had filed a CC against the Judiciary for every ruling I didn't agree with, the judiciary would be backed up for monthes.
Just because the judiciary doesn't rule to your liking, doesn't mean the judiciary is not impartial.

DaveShack
May 17, 2006, 10:02 PM
If I had filed a CC against the Judiciary for every ruling I didn't agree with, the judiciary would be backed up for monthes.
Just because the judiciary doesn't rule to your liking, doesn't mean the judiciary is not impartial.

Let me be completely honest here.

I have disagreed with many rulings. In every other case that comes quickly to mind, it has been a matter of the law saying nothing on an issue, or having multiple sections in conflict with each other. Most of the time it has been sufficient to shoot the offender down in the next election, or write a new law which makes the ruling obsolete. In extremely rare circumstances, the justice was actually willing to admit that the ruling was incorrect, after being questioned on what the ruling meant. To be fair to CivGeneral, I can't really expect him to change without at least one of the others changing first because he has to avoid appearing indecisive.

As I have already explained, this is an extremely rare circumstance where there is only one possible correct reading of a law, and these three misguided souls think they must read it a different way just to prove that it's possible to read it a different way. They are breaking rules of the English language to interpret the law that way. If we allow people to ignore the language's rules, then we might as well not have a ruleset for the game at all because without the language's rules you can make up your own language rules, and a given statement means anything you want.

Cyc
May 18, 2006, 04:24 PM
DS, grow up. Take the ruling in your right hand, open your mouth, insert the ruling into your open mouth, and chew briskly. Swallow occaisionally until fully digested. There. Better?

Robboo your last post is as absurd as DS's.

Good point, Black_Hole.

robboo
May 18, 2006, 04:35 PM
Cyc..why so...Using what Don said that is a very pausible outcome if someone wanted to play by Donsig's rules of the DP making decisions.

Cyc
May 18, 2006, 05:01 PM
No, robboo. You're just donsig - bashing. The logic used is just comparing oranges to apples. Read what donsig says. Don't just blindly slash at it with your sword..... :rolleyes:

GeorgeOP
May 18, 2006, 05:10 PM
why don't we change the law if the law is wrong?
Donsig will be happy, and Dave will be happy
I did change the law. But people are interpreting it differently and now it doesn't help give jobs to people without jobs, it just bogs everything down.

robboo
May 18, 2006, 08:25 PM
Sorry Cyc still dont see it.

Donsig wrote: "Or is the DP free to make any needed decisions as they arise? I find it difficult to believe we cannot conduct business (play the save) if we are missing an officer or three."

First off..no he is not able to make decisions such as War and Peace with out the Censor or SoS posting instructions in an official capacity since that is up to the citizen assembly much like I was scolded for posting a referendum poll outside of my area.

IN MY OPINION...once again the judicairy showes they do not know THIS CoL..but rather other demo games CoL.

I am not bashing blindly...I can see what I am saying perhaps the judiciary with their unimpeachable powers need to step back and look at it as a citizen would.

donsig
May 18, 2006, 11:26 PM
Donsig wrote: "Or is the DP free to make any needed decisions as they arise? I find it difficult to believe we cannot conduct business (play the save) if we are missing an officer or three."

First off..no he is not able to make decisions such as War and Peace with out the Censor or SoS posting instructions in an official capacity since that is up to the citizen assembly much like I was scolded for posting a referendum poll outside of my area.

IN MY OPINION...once again the judicairy showes they do not know THIS CoL..but rather other demo games CoL.

I am not bashing blindly...I can see what I am saying perhaps the judiciary with their unimpeachable powers need to step back and look at it as a citizen would.

First of all, the judiciary has had no request for a judicial review on war and peace so all this talk about hypothetical situations is just citizen discussion.

Second, right, the DP cannot make decisions about war and peace since the CoL (the current one not one from a past DG) says only a instruction posted by the Censor based on a (presumably valid) citizen's assembly vote can declare war or make peace. The asbense of the instruction or the vote does not stop the game. The DP can still play he just can't make peace or declare war. He has to either continue play under the existing condition (be it war or peace) or he can stall and try to get a proper vote and instruction post. The game can go on.

Third, I did not say the Dp could actually do anything, I merely asked. NO ONE has answered. (Not even Nobody.)

Fourth, I did not scold you robboo. I merely pointed out that your poll could not be a referendum. I have spent many terms in this game trying to get everyone to properly use the different forms of decision making as outlined in our constitution.

Fifth, I did not make the rule that made justices unimpeachable. If you want to change that rule I will support you. If you want to request a judicial review of that law I can tell you right now I would rule it unconstitutional. (I think I've already gone on record as saying that.)

I did change the law. But people are interpreting it differently and now it doesn't help give jobs to people without jobs, it just bogs everything down.

A simple law stating the appointing officer had to appoint someone who did not have an office at the time of the vacancy would have been sufficient to do what you wanted. One sentence accomplishes that.

DaveShack
May 19, 2006, 01:00 AM
I did change the law. But people are interpreting it differently and now it doesn't help give jobs to people without jobs, it just bogs everything down.

Exactly right. More people say this than not -- a lot more. Actually you could attempt to claim that this is merely a typo of some sort, and use CoL Section 10 A.II to make the necessary changes correcting the law to say what it means. That's if any of our fine justices would care to explain, as I have, how they parse the current law, in their case to read differently than its meaning as written.

Actually, if they would offer proof instead of just incoherent babbling, maybe this would not be an issue.

donsig
May 19, 2006, 02:16 PM
Exactly right. More people say this than not -- a lot more. Actually you could attempt to claim that this is merely a typo of some sort, and use CoL Section 10 A.II to make the necessary changes correcting the law to say what it means. That's if any of our fine justices would care to explain, as I have, how they parse the current law, in their case to read differently than its meaning as written.

Actually, if they would offer proof instead of just incoherent babbling, maybe this would not be an issue.

If so many people are so concerned about this and putting so much effort into it then why hasn't the law been changed yet? I even drafted a replacement but no action has been taken on it. That tells me the people really don't care that much. This case has come before the judiciary and all three justices interpreted it the same way. What more do you want? If you don't like the interpretation we gave then do something to override it. Either pass a citizens initiative, a citizen's assembly vote or amend the CoL or constitution. But please don't keep arguing about it in this thread.

DaveShack
May 19, 2006, 02:49 PM
A mock poll on the replacement law is in its 24 hour wait period. :D

DaveShack
May 20, 2006, 10:17 AM
Please review the attached amendment to Section 8 of the Code of Laws.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The following amendment to the Code of Laws is hereby presented to the Citizen's Assembly for ratification. This is a citizen initiative poll, is public, and will be open for four days. To pass, 60% or more of those voting must vote yes.

Question: Do you approve the attached amendment to Section 8 of the Code of Laws?

Answers Yes, No, Abstain

[Link to discussion thread] (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=169405)

---------------------------------------------------------
Text of section to be replaced.
Section 8 - Office Limits and Vacancies

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

B) Limits to Holding Office
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
II. Governors and Members of the Cabinet may hold up to two offices at the same time.

C) Vacancies
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. Note: section VIA is a previous amendment which has been posted in the constitution / CoL thread but has not been edited into the CoL.
VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office within 48 hours of the appointment. This must be a private poll, asking the question "Should the appointment of <citizen name> as <office> be confirmed", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll must last for 3 days. If the poll closes with more no votes than yes votes, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term. The appointee holds the office and is free to exercize the full powers of the office until such time as the appointment is reversed. 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.

---------------------------------------------------------
Text of section to be added in place of the above original text.
Section 8 - Limits on Office Holders, Vacancies, and Appointments

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

B. Limits to Holding Office
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
II. Governors and Members of the Cabinet may hold up to two offices at the same time, at least one via appointment.
III. No citizen may be appointed to a 2nd office unless no citizen without a position is interested in the empty office. The appointing official must announce a deadline for citizens to indicate their interest in the office, which shall not be less than 72 hours after the time the deadline is announced. This deadline is used solely for the purpose of demonstrating no citizen is interested in the office for the purpose this subsection. At any time that a citizen without an office expresses interest in the vacancy, the deadline of this section is considered fulfilled, a citizen without an office may be appointed immediately, and no person already holding an office may be appointed to this vacancy.
IV. A resignation contingent on an appointment may be used as a mechanism to permit a current office holder to acquire a new position, without violating subsections B.I and B.II of this section.

C. Vacancies

An office is vacant if any of the following conditions is met:
No candidates accept a nomination for the office during elections
The current office holder resigns, is impeached (recalled), or is removed from office as the result of a judicial action.
The current office holder is absent from the Democracy Game forum, without notice, for a period of 5 or more days, and does not post in the Democracy Game forum within 48 hours of being notified that his/her presence is required. D. Filling of Vacancies

A vacant office must be filled via the first method in this list which applies to the situation.
The deputy for an office, if one exists, assumes the duties of the office.
The President, if resigning from office and not being removed as the result of a recall or judicial action, appoints his/her successor.
The President appoints a citizen to the office, other than the office of President.
The Secretary of State appoints a citizen to the office of President, in cases where the vacancy is not due to voluntary resignation.
The Secretary of War appoints a citizen to the office of President if the office of Secretary of State is also vacant.
If the entire triumvirate is vacant, all three Triumvirate offices are filled via a Special Election, with nominations lasting 2 days and election polls lasting 3 days. After the special election, if any new Triumvirate member is elected, any remaining Triumvirate offices are filled by the appointment process in this section.
If a special election for triumvirate offices fails to select any new triumvirate members, the highest ranking cabinet officer remaining assumes the duties of President. E. All vacancy appointments are provisional until the time for a confirmation poll has passed, or when a confirmation poll for that appointment concludes with a 'Yes' majority.

F. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office within 48 hours of the appointment. This must be a private poll, asking the question "Should the appointment of <citizen name> as <office> be confirmed", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll must last for 3 days. If the poll closes with more no votes than yes votes, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term. The appointee holds the office and is free to exercize the full powers of the office until such time as the appointment is reversed.

G. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Cyc
May 21, 2006, 04:04 PM
I have a problem with a portion of 8.B.III.

It states, "At any time that a citizen without an office expresses interest in the vacancy, the deadline of this section is considered fulfilled, a citizen without an office may be appointed immediately".

By this statement, one and only one citizen can apply for the offfice in question. If a problem occurs with their application or some other difficulty arises that precludes their appointment, the 72 hour waiting period has ended and no other citizen can apply. By prematurely ending the 72 hour waiting period that the President must afford our citizens, the above line appears to be unconstitutional.

robboo
May 21, 2006, 04:09 PM
Wouldnt this new version overwrite the 72 hours rule. I mean there has to be a way to rewrite the Col/constitution.

Unless you are sayign that once something is in the CoL/constitution it can not be changed?

Cyc
May 21, 2006, 04:16 PM
Wouldnt this new version overwrite the 72 hours rule. I mean there has to be a way to rewrite the Col/constitution.

Unless you are sayign that once something is in the CoL/constitution it can not be changed?
Uh, no. That's not what I'm saying, robboo.

Try reading the ammendment that DS has proposed above and all the information will be there for you. You will find what I have said is true.

Even in this re-write, the 72 hour waiting period remains and must be enforced. It's tough being benevolent, isn't it.

Just think, after the revolution, your king, who won't need silly laws, can do what he wants....

DaveShack
May 21, 2006, 06:11 PM
Pull your head out, please. :rolleyes:

The office must be filled by someone who does not already have an office.

If 3 days pass, and there are no people interested in the position that do not already hold another office, then someone who already has an office can be appointed.

Show exactly what about the proposal does not mean what I've just written.

robboo
May 21, 2006, 08:03 PM
Dumb questiosn...can I write an amendment to get rid of the 72 hour rule? IF so tell me how must it be worded to avoid conflicts like you mentioned above.

DaveShack
May 21, 2006, 08:15 PM
I have a problem with a portion of 8.B.III.

It states, "At any time that a citizen without an office expresses interest in the vacancy, the deadline of this section is considered fulfilled, a citizen without an office may be appointed immediately".

By this statement, one and only one citizen can apply for the offfice in question. If a problem occurs with their application or some other difficulty arises that precludes their appointment, the 72 hour waiting period has ended and no other citizen can apply.
Other people could apply, in particular if the President or other appointing official doesn't want to appoint the first person who does apply. What this does mean is that if the 1st applicant is satisfactory, it is not necessary to wait for another.


By prematurely ending the 72 hour waiting period that the President must afford our citizens, the above line appears to be unconstitutional.
Let me use an analogy here.

During a CC proceeding, the JA opens the guilt / innocence discussion thread. For the 1st 24 hours, only the PD (or appointed substitute) and the accused are allowed to post, unless they have both posted, in which case the 24 hour limit no longer applies.

During a CC appointment proceeding, the JA President opens the guilt / innocence discussion application thread. For the 1st 24 72 hours, only the PD (or appointed substitute) and the accused people without an office are allowed to apply post, unless they have both one has applied posted, in which case the 24 72 hour limit no longer applies.

What does this conflict with? We've been doing exactly the same thing as part of the CC procedures for something like 4 games now.

DaveShack
May 21, 2006, 08:19 PM
Dumb questiosn...can I write an amendment to get rid of the 72 hour rule? IF so tell me how must it be worded to avoid conflicts like you mentioned above.

Don't worry about it, if we don't get a clarification which favors our position, I'll just remove the entire 72 hour thing and resubmit the existing proposal.

It's a shame this has to happen, because the whole point is to encourage appoinments of new people, something that we're been trying to do for ages.

donsig
May 22, 2006, 03:17 PM
It's a shame this has to happen, because the whole point is to encourage appoinments of new people, something that we're been trying to do for ages.

Then why don't you just propose a CoL amendment that says The appointing official must appoint someone who does not hold another office at the time of the appintment? In one sentence you can do more than just encourage the appointment of new people. You can also do away with the mandatory time issue and call for applications. You'd also give the judiciary a much easier amendment to review. The huge proposal before us right now will take quite a bit of time to review correctly.

DaveShack
May 22, 2006, 04:48 PM
Then why don't you just propose a CoL amendment that says The appointing official must appoint someone who does not hold another office at the time of the appintment? In one sentence you can do more than just encourage the appointment of new people. You can also do away with the mandatory time issue and call for applications. You'd also give the judiciary a much easier amendment to review. The huge proposal before us right now will take quite a bit of time to review correctly.

That would eliminate the ability for someone to hold multiple offices.

Why don't you just stop thinking of the time issue as mandatory? Then we wouldn't need to change the law at all. :p

donsig
May 22, 2006, 07:47 PM
That would eliminate the ability for someone to hold multiple offices.

Why not make a choice of which is more important (letting people have multiple offices or encouraging new office holders) and write the law accordingly. By trying to write a law that allows both you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

StrategyDoRk
May 22, 2006, 08:29 PM
Why not make a choice of which is more important (letting people have multiple offices or encouraging new office holders) and write the law accordingly. By trying to write a law that allows both you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

The problem with encouraging new office holders, is that we dont have any of the new to encourage. We are running very short on persoanly, and in my personaly opinion need to consolidate positions.

DaveShack
May 23, 2006, 08:33 PM
Can we maybe finish the process on the current amendment?

I'm waiting for a response to my analogy between this proposal and the CC procedures which have been in place virtually forever. Either we've been screwing up the CC process for almost as long as I've been in the DemoGame, or it's perfectly OK to start off with a limitation and then lift it when a condition is met.

donsig
May 24, 2006, 05:10 PM
Can we maybe finish the process on the current amendment?

I'm waiting for a response to my analogy between this proposal and the CC procedures which have been in place virtually forever. Either we've been screwing up the CC process for almost as long as I've been in the DemoGame, or it's perfectly OK to start off with a limitation and then lift it when a condition is met.

Have you asked for a judicial review of the CC process?

Cyc
May 24, 2006, 06:02 PM
Can we maybe finish the process on the current amendment?

I'm waiting for a response to my analogy between this proposal and the CC procedures which have been in place virtually forever. Either we've been screwing up the CC process for almost as long as I've been in the DemoGame, or it's perfectly OK to start off with a limitation and then lift it when a condition is met.
I must say, DS, the last two analogies you've made have been far beneath your normal level of expertise. I won't get into the prior one, but this one defeats itself right from the begining.

First off, the CC procedure that you try to quote asks for 2 and only two people to respond before ending. Once those two people have responded, the period of time reserved for them ends. Period. In your ammendment, only one person needs to apply and the 72 hour period ends. Very bad. Why can't you see this? I don't care what you meant it to mean. I care about what it says. Period.

My contention is that with the wording of this amendment, you are ending the 72 hour period after the first applicant applies and is appointed. This ends the chance of others who may qualify for the position to apply. If the President preps his/her favorite applicant before posting the vacancy notice, and clues that person into when the 72 hour period starts, that person can be the first to apply and be appointed immediately. This is a corruption of the system, as when the President appoints his favored applicant, the 72 hour period ends and no other citizens can apply.

This ammendment must change the wording of the appointment/ending of the 72 hour period to not violate the Constituion.

PD Cyc

DaveShack
May 24, 2006, 11:52 PM
This ammendment must change the wording of the appointment/ending of the 72 hour period to not violate the Constituion.

PD Cyc

Please quote the Article that it conflicts with and give reasoning how it conflicts.

DaveShack
May 24, 2006, 11:53 PM
Have you asked for a judicial review of the CC process?

Of course not, it would give you another opportunity to change the law from the bench.

DaveShack
May 25, 2006, 12:01 AM
Oh, by the way I'm still waiting for the other two justices.

Cyc
May 25, 2006, 03:29 PM
Please quote the Article that it conflicts with and give reasoning how it conflicts.
:) If you're going to get all pissy about it King DS, you can look the Law up yourself. I really don't need to take any of your crap in this thread, until you make a formal request. And we both know you're not going to allow us heathens to change the law from the bench, so can it, senor.

Get a grip, DS

DaveShack
May 25, 2006, 05:27 PM
That was a serious request. When I declare a new amendment in conflict with another existing law, I quote which law it conflicts with and explain what the conflict is. Didn't think it was too much to ask. :(

Just saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. I require proof, as any citizen should. Since you've been unwilling to provide actual proof, I have to conclude you have none.

Cyc
May 28, 2006, 03:17 PM
JR # 5 - 3

The proposed ammendment in it's current form prematurely terminates the required 72 - hour waiting period, designed to allow applicants not holding office to apply. With the wording setup the way it is, any applicants wishing to apply after an appointment during the 72 - hour period are denied their Constitutional right to be eligible to hold office.

In three different sections of the proposed ammendment it is stated that a 72 - period must be afforded to eligible applicants.

III. Cabinet Vacancies
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.
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.
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.

It's the same in each instance.

The section that cements the wrong-doing is found later in the ammendment.

B. Limits to Holding Office
III. No citizen may be appointed to a 2nd office unless no citizen without a position is interested in the empty office. The appointing official must announce a deadline for citizens to indicate their interest in the office, which shall not be less than 72 hours after the time the deadline is announced. This deadline is used solely for the purpose of demonstrating no citizen is interested in the office for the purpose this subsection. At any time that a citizen without an office expresses interest in the vacancy, the deadline of this section is considered fulfilled, a citizen without an office may be appointed immediately, and no person already holding an office may be appointed to this vacancy.

This blurb totally denies eligibility of other applicants to the position. Even though you wrote this passage in light of efficiency and convenience, you are dening others their Constitutional right.

CivGeneral
May 28, 2006, 04:24 PM
JR # 5 - 3
In reading, the proposed ammendment terminates the suggested 72 hour waiting time which serves to allow applicans who are currently not holding an office to apply. The wording of this proposal it states that any applicant wishing to apply after the appointment during the 72 hour timeline would be denyed the consitutional rights and privlages to be eligible to hold office.

Here are the sources that I have came up with.

III. Cabinet Vacancies
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.
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.
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.


Each of the statements I have bolded and underlined stated that these leaders must request that any interested citizen who does not hold an office to contact the respected leader.

B. Limits to Holding Office
III. No citizen may be appointed to a 2nd office unless no citizen without a position is interested in the empty office. The appointing official must announce a deadline for citizens to indicate their interest in the office, which shall not be less than 72 hours after the time the deadline is announced. This deadline is used solely for the purpose of demonstrating no citizen is interested in the office for the purpose this subsection. At any time that a citizen without an office expresses interest in the vacancy, the deadline of this section is considered fulfilled, a citizen without an office may be appointed immediately, and no person already holding an office may be appointed to this vacancy.
This I feel states that the statement denies any eligibility of any other applicants to this possition Thus denying others of their consitutional right. To make this ruling clear, I am against the amendmen. This was a hard desision to make, but I have done a lot of spiritual praying to God to grant me serenity in this decision since I do feel like Nobody when he was CJ and be faced with the entire demogame crying blood against Nobody.

DaveShack
May 29, 2006, 01:37 AM
Thank you for (finally :rolleyes:) bothering to answer. We could have had a discussion on this point right from the start, if anyone had bothered to bring it up -- instead y'all pulled the "we're the god-like judiciary and it doesn't matter why we ruled the way we do" trick.

There is no point in further argument, due to the current date. However, I can't resist the urge to teach. Maybe others who want to be Justices can learn from these words.

Everyone is eligible to hold office. My proposed amendment does not affect eligibility. All one needs to do is accept a nomination at the once a month event called the elections. These days, that's a virtual lock on getting an office.

Everyone who manages to get an application in before an appointment is made is eligible for the appointment. In fact, everyone who doesn't hold an office is eligible to be appointed. Nowhere does it say only people who apply can be appointed. What gave you the idea that the appointing individual can't just grab someone from the citizen's registry and say "you're it, tell me if you don't want it?"

Once again, for those who are slow, the words of the current law, words of the amendment, meaning of the current law, and meaning of the amendment all say the exact same thing. We want people without an office to be eligible to be appointed -- and therefore, people with an office (who by definition are already eligible to hold office given they do hold office) aren't eligible to be appointed unless there is nobody else interested, because they shouldn't be able to hog a 2nd office and deny someone else that eligibility.

donsig
May 29, 2006, 10:10 AM
Once again, for those who are slow, the words of the current law, words of the amendment, meaning of the current law, and meaning of the amendment all say the exact same thing. We want people without an office to be eligible to be appointed -- and therefore, people with an office (who by definition are already eligible to hold office given they do hold office) aren't eligible to be appointed unless there is nobody else interested, because they shouldn't be able to hog a 2nd office and deny someone else that eligibility.

Once more, the words quoted above are NOT in the current law or the proposed law. If they were we wouldn't be having a JR because there could be no doubt about what the law means. A simple law stating non-office holders must be appointed would suffice. You want to encourage new office holders but don't want to take the step needed to ensure we don't have dual office holders. Your refusal to take that step results in the monstrosity of a law that has been proposed. In order to encourage new office holders you attempt to tie the appointing officer's hands by imposing a 72 hour wait to be sure no one who doesn't have an office doesn't want it. But once you do that you open the can of worms brought up by Cyc. When you get right down to it it's a pointless law because if the appointing officer has already made up his mind on whom to appoint not only is the 72 moot but so is the call for applicants. Face it - it's a bad law. I'm still not sure if it's constitutional but I made up my mind long ago that I would not vote for this amendment.

Besides Cyc's objections there is the one CivGeneral brought up about the constitutionality of excluding current offcie holders. How we interpret the constitutional clause guaranteeing eligibility to hold office is key to how this JR should be interpreted. Obviously you (DaveShack) have chosen to interpret it in a general sense, i.e., that citizens are guaranteed to be eligible for an and so long as they are eligible for an office their constitutonal right is satisfied. If you'd take your blinders off you'd see that it is quite reasonable to look upon that clause in a different and more specific sense, in other words, that citizens are guaranteed eligibility for each specific office. Not only should we listen to what CivGeneral has to say on this we should look back through old JR rulings and see how a previous CJ invoked this clause to say term limits were unconstitutional.

I will post my official ruling on this JR tonight or tomorrow.

DaveShack
May 29, 2006, 11:37 AM
If we had been discussing this, the original amendment (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=155166) thread (for the one before mine) and the original judicial review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151373) would have been interesting points for discussion.

This was the ruling on the GeorgeOP amendment which added the infamous 72 hours in the first place.


C4DG1JR5 - Judge Advocate's review
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



If it wasn't a problem with the Constitution then, I have a hard time understanding why it's a problem now.

donsig
May 29, 2006, 12:27 PM
If it wasn't a problem with the Constitution then, I have a hard time understanding why it's a problem now.

The decision you quoted was the one that allowed the current law to be adopted, wasn't it? We've not yet said the current law is unconstitutional (though CivGeneral's reasoning would do that as would the other JR decision handed down by a previous CJ regarding term limits). The problem has been in the differing interpretations of the 72 hour clause of the law that was eventually ratified after the JR you quote.

As an aside, I think JRs are not the time for discussion. The discussion was supposed to happen before the law or amendment gets to the judiciary. This is not to say that the judiciary should bury it's head inthe sand and ignore all else while making a decision. I do think though that inputs should be limited to legal briefs posted for all to see in the judicial thread. Such a brief from you would be helpful to me in arriving at my decision. But it should be based on legal principles and arguments. You have an excellent opportunity to affect a CJ's decision since you can respond to the rulings already posted by the PD and JA.

dutchfire
May 29, 2006, 12:30 PM
Donsig could you please post the current Judicial Procedures in the thread Dave has started?

donsig
May 30, 2006, 06:40 PM
Donsig could you please post the current Judicial Procedures in the thread Dave has started?

I think I put a link to the current procedures in that thread. I'll check now bacause I wanted to read that thread anyway. :)

donsig
May 30, 2006, 07:58 PM
Clause 8.B.III of the proposed amendment states: No citizen may be appointed to a 2nd office unless no citizen without a position is interested in the empty office.. This disqualifies a citizen who is otherwise eligible to hold the office. Such a disqualification conflicts with article B.2.c of our constitution which guarantees our citizens The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office.

I find the amendment ineligible for ratification due to a conflict with article B.2.c of our constitution.

Cyc
May 31, 2006, 01:50 PM
Again DS, you're analogies amaze me. They make no sense to the point at hand, only to you and those that follow you blindly. They are the ramblings of someone that has a last attempt point to drive home.

Again, you post in the Judicial thread to insult the Justices. Grow up.

If you wanted a discussion of you great ammendment, then you should have not posted the mock poll in the Judicial thread. It belongs in a discussion thread. That is where the 24 hour waiting period is supposed to be. If you want things done the right way, then you have to do your end in the right way also. Quit whining.

And last, you started your Court a day early. I realize you don't need laws and rules in your tiny world, but the rest of us like to use them here. Term VI starts on the 1st of June. Get a grip.

As this Court's session is still in play, I would like to thank you for endlessly wasting this Court's time.
:hammer:

DaveShack
Jun 01, 2006, 01:14 AM
If you wanted a discussion of you great ammendment, then you should have not posted the mock poll in the Judicial thread. It belongs in a discussion thread. That is where the 24 hour waiting period is supposed to be.


What, like this discussion thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=169405)?

How about this discussion thread, where the original meaning of 72 hours (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=155166)was discussed?

Perhaps this court could have held an actual discussion on the questions facing it, like seen in this discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152793)on a JR by a previous court.


I would like to thank you for endlessly wasting this Court's time.


You're welcome. No stone shall be left unturned.

donsig
Jun 05, 2006, 06:02 PM
DaveShack, I have been consistent in saying the judiciary must make ruling based on the actual wording of a law under review. If the wording is sufficient to render a decision then the intent of the law does not enter the question. It is not the judiciary's job to fix poorly written laws.