Chief Justice: donsig
Public Defender: bootstoots
Judge Advocate: Peri

Demogame rules (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51315)

Judicial Department - Term 1 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52104)

The purpose of the Judiciary is spelled out in Article C of our constitution:

3. The Judicial Branch will be formed of three Leaders and is tasked
with verifying legality of legislation, interpreting rules, and
determining when violations occur. Each also has a specific
area of additional responsibility.

a. The Chief Justice is the overall head of the Judiciary and can
fill in for either lower position. The Chief Justice is
responsible for maintaining the legal books of the country
and the mechanics of Judicial Procedure.

b. The Judge Advocate functions in a role of prosecution and
attorney to the state when allegations of rulebreaking have
been made.

c. The Public Defendant functions in the roll of defense for any
and all accused citizens.

From the Office of the Judge Advocate

Thanks for the welcome Boots. I look forward to working with you all

When not working for the SPQF, I am available to the citizenry for pro bono legal work.
I can handle divorces, conveyancing, litigation, contracts, etc so please call on me in the forum of Penguidaua. My office is next to Moe's caupona

I offer a free Saltatrix with every case won. ;)

The Public Defender takes his seat for the third time. I welcome you, Peri, to the Judiciary. I would like to announce that I will be absent from June 17-27 and will need a Pro-Tem Defender to take my place for that time.

I will be happy to apply for the job for Pro-term PD :D.

Congratulations go out to all in the Judicial Department. A parade is called for. A toast to donsig.

Originally posted by Cyc
Congratulations go out to all in the Judicial Department. A parade is called for. A toast to donsig.

I hope the parade goes down donsig avenue. :)

I'm very glad to continue on as CJ. I'd hate to give up the JDH and that great Judical Bench that Gladiatus put together for me! :hammer:

I'll add my name both to the list of people lining up to congratulate our Judiciary on their new & continued tenures, and to that of applicants for the post of Public Defender Pro-tem :goodjob:

I will appoint CG as Pro-Tem Defender, as he has no Judicial experience and this would give him some. He will take office at around noon on June 17 (possibly earlier or later, I'll say so if necessary) and leave when I return, probably on June 27.

Originally posted by bootstoots
I will appoint CG as Pro-Tem Defender, as he has no Judicial experience and this would give him some. He will take office at around noon on June 17 (possibly earlier or later, I'll say so if necessary) and leave when I return, probably on June 27.

There is no constitutional authority for you to do this. Please see this post. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1022119#post1022119)

I am calling for Judicial Review on the issue of whether to allow a Judicial member to appoint a pro tem justice to take their place over a period of absence. The part of the Constitution in question is section C.3.a, which is displayed here:
a. The Chief Justice is the overall head of the Judiciary and can
fill in for either lower position. The Chief Justice is
responsible for maintaining the legal books of the country
and the mechanics of Judicial Procedure.
I hereby find that each Judicial member can appoint a pro-tem judicial member to take their place during a leave of absence. Simply because the CJ can take over for the lower offices doesn't mean that each lower office can't appoint a pro-tem justice to take their place. This also doesn't allow the CJ to be the sole person who can appoint pro-tem justices. There is much precident for the appointment of pro-tem justices in the previous demogames, and the ability of each Judicial member to appoint pro tem judicial members is outlined in the Demogame II CoL. Also, to not allow the Judicial members to appoint a pro-tem justice to take their place is also in effect denying that other positions such as Deputies, Mayors, and other offices in departments exist at all, simply because the Constitution doesn't say that they exist. We adopted a smaller ruleset because the people were to use common sense, doesn't this imply that things not included in the Constitution but also not forbidden should exist? I am calling on our Judiciary, particularly our Judge Advocate, to allow us the right to appoint pro-tem justices.

Double post.

From the Office of the Judge Advocate

Firstly I would like to see more evidence presented on the need to appoint temporary justices.
Is it not more logical and in keeping with the letter of the Constitution to consider such an appointment only when and if the need arises?
Also would not the head of the judiciary consider extra appointments to his department?

Bootstoots has formally requested a Judicial Review regarding the appointment of pro tem justices. Article C.3 of our constitution charges the Judicial Branch with "interpreting rules" and the following Judicial Review is submitted under the authority of that constitutional clause.

Article C.3.a states that The Chief Justice is the overall head of the Judiciary and can fill in for either lower position. This clause specifically covers the absence of the Public Defendant and Judge Advocate. It is my opinion that this clause was entered into the constitution by the framers to preclude both judicial deputies and pro tem justices as I see no other reason for this clause to exist. Therefore I find the appointment of pro tem justices unconstitutional.

Article D of the constitution states that All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms. It is my opinion that this clause also renders the appointment of pro tem justices unconstitutional.

I request a PI for Donovan_Zoi. He left a settler ungarrisoned and it was killed by an Egyptian warrior. The previous turnchat, I had used a legion escort for that settler. The same settler lost 2 turns since he didn't read my latter instructions. The chat log can be found in the Turn Chat thread.

I would like to answer some of the points raised by my brother Justices.

the ability of each Judicial member to appoint pro tem judicial members is outlined in the Demogame II CoL (bootstoots)

The DG2 CoL carries little weight in DG3. It was not adopted in our land because it contains much that we (as a group) decided we did not want to continue.

not allow the Judicial members to appoint a pro-tem justice to take their place is also in effect denying that other positions such as Deputies, Mayors, and other offices in departments exist at all (bootstoots)

Mayors have no political authority and are therefore not relevant to the discussion. While deputies are not specifically authorized in the constitution there is also no constitutional back up plan for executive department leaders as there is for the judicial department. Also, deputies are chosen through the process of our elections and they are not appointed.

Also would not the head of the judiciary consider extra appointments to his department? (Peri)

As head of the judiciary I am not in favor of appointments as this contradicts our tradition of having elected officials.

I would like to see more evidence presented on the need to appoint temporary justices. (Peri)

I see no need for the appointment of pro tem justices. In cases of investigation regarding the breaking of rules the judicial department can operate if either or both the PD and JA are absent. It is only in rule interpretations that opinions may be needed from all three justices. In many cases such interpretations will not be so time sensitive that a ruling cannot await the return of an absent justice.

Chieftess has formally requested a public investigation into the loss a settler. The President stands accused of not following the instructions of the Domestic Leader. The Judicial Branch is empowered with determining when violations occur under article C.3 of our constitution.

Under article C.3.a the Chief Justice is responsible for the mechanics of Judicial Procedure.
Under article C.3.b the Judge Advocate functions in a role of prosecution.
Under article C.3.c the Public Defendant functions in the roll of defense for any and all accused citizens.

As a first step I request the Judge Advocate, in consultation with Chieftess (the citizen who has initiated this investigation), determine if there is any plausible evidence that a specific article of our constitution has been violated by the President. If the JA finds that there is plausible evidence of a constitutional violation then the investigation will proceed. If the JA finds no plausible evidence then these charges will have to be dismissed.

I also request that the Public Defendant confer with the President (the accused) in order to start preparing possible defenses should these charges not be dropped.

Finally, I request that everyone bear in mind that Chieftess is well within her rights to invoke this investigation and that Donovan_Zoi is to be presumed innocent until found otherwise through our judicial process.

Originally posted by donsig



As head of the judiciary I am not in favor of appointments as this contradicts our tradition of having elected officials.

(Peri)

I see no need for the appointment of pro tem justices. In cases of investigation regarding the breaking of rules the judicial department can operate if either or both the PD and JA are absent. It is only in rule interpretations that opinions may be needed from all three justices. In many cases such interpretations will not be so time sensitive that a ruling cannot await the return of an absent justice.

Thats what I thought but thanks for ruling on it :)

Here's the evidence:

Turnchat thread
There's a settle by the Dyes, and another by Noshuret. The settler on the dyes is with the Legion. Take him south to the port location.
.
.
.
Settler/Legion pair by Regia: Take this to "The Fog". This is 1 north of the iron south of Regia.


[19:22] <@DX_Zoi> I am in BIG TROUBLE
[19:22] <+cyc1> they don't have coat "buttons". Otherwise there would be a translation for the buttons
[19:22] <@Chieftess> That was its' origanal intent...
[19:22] <@Chieftess> uh oh, what?
[19:22] <+Noldodan> ah
[19:22] <+CivGeneral> What happened DZ?
[19:22] <@DX_Zoi> I didnt send the settler escort to the Fog and there is an Egyptian warrior there
[19:22] <@DX_Zoi> *^$&

Ok, I will begin formulating a defense. One thing, if DZ is found guilty, do we go under last game's sentencing options?

Originally posted by bootstoots
Ok, I will begin formulating a defense. One thing, if DZ is found guilty, do we go under last game's sentencing options?

Let's take one step at a time here. The first step is the JA's decision on whether there is plausible evidence that a specific article has been violated. I ask our Domestic Advisor to submit evidence to the JA via PM. I also ask the PD to confer with the accused via PM.

Originally posted by Chieftess
I request a PI for Donovan_Zoi. He left a settler ungarrisoned and it was killed by an Egyptian warrior. The previous turnchat, I had used a legion escort for that settler. The same settler lost 2 turns since he didn't read my latter instructions. The chat log can be found in the Turn Chat thread.

For the record, the Settler is still with us but will meet certain doom next turn. I would like to say in response to Chieftess that she did change turnchatinstructions (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1024206#post1024206) after the chat started(please note edit time --- 9 minutes after beginning of chat), and posts two different sets of instructions regarding our settlers. One set at the top(and therefore first read), and one hastily near the bottom of her instructions. In addition, not one of her instructed sites was chosen in a poll by the people of Fanatica.

If Chieftess decides to turn my honest mistake into a P.I. , then I will have no choice but to return the favor for her cavalier running of the Domestic Department as she has not posted a priority poll for one single city since the founding of Gorina. This practice has led to the founding of such sites as Xar Tsaroth(aka Funkytowne), which will no larger than Size 2 for its ill-fated non-polled placement, as well as Nur Gisnod which was inexplicably built one tile away from the coast. I waived my right to bring forth charges in these instances to uphold the spirit of the game.

If the statute of limitations is up on these then please consult todays t/c thread for all the evidence you need. I restate: Chieftess changed her mind about which city sites to found in today's turnchat thread. Does this sound like a decision that was made with the will of the people in mind?

Let me make this clear. I am more than willing to accept responsibility for my actions where this matter is concerned. However, if the only possible solution for Chieftess is a P.I. then I will ensure that she is held accountable for her actions as well under Acticle G of our Constitution: Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.

My apologies if I seem to have posted a defense here, but I am a bit dismayed at the implications here. I will consult the Public Defender and follow procedure from here on out.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatica

DZ - I have indeed posted polls and discussion, but hardly anyone has posted in them.

Polls

Cities for the eastern expansion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54446)
Do you accept these provinces? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54047)
What province size should we go for? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53783)
Where should we build our first city? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52413)

Discussions

Defining our provinces (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53459)
Domestic: Setting the priority (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54502)
Domestic: 775BC - Eastward Expansion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54325)
Domestic: Western Expansion - 775BC (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54434)
Agressive Expansion? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53762)
City Plan - Filling the Continent (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53002)
Domestic: Our 2nd city - city planning (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52785)
Domestic Discussion: Our first city site (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52365)

I had posted in both the Eastward and Westward Expansion threads regarding the unbelievably poor placement of Funkytowne, and yet the issue of this city's placement was still not posted in the polls.

I believe that when you try to rubber stamp an entire province, alot can get lost in the shuffle for those who don't inspect the city sites closely. I still hold the belief that city sites and prioritization should be polled individually, as greenlighting an entire province opens up the chance for yesterday's fiasco, where you have full reign over which city is founded next once your block of choices has been approved. This then makes you believe that you can then presumably change your mind and leave conflicting instructions after the chat has started. To me, that is not acting with the will of the people in mind.

Fortunately, cooler heads shall prevail on this side of the fence. After conferring with the Public Defender, I have decided to not follow through with my charges against Chieftess. I feel that while I have a strong case for doing so, it would be counterproductive and no good for the nation. Besides, I fully understand that it is my boneheaded move that got us here in the first place, and should this go to trial I will gladly accept Fanatica's decisions.

So, Chieftess, please continue on this path if you feel it necessary. I apologize profusely for my blunder, but hopefully you can see how things could have been misconstrued on my part. In all honesty, if we had taken my advice, we wouldn't have been heading that way in the first place. In all the confusion of my leading my first chat, I thought the Legion was do us more good in the North. Plus I honestly thought that we had secured the area south of Regia Doughnutia. And I did vocalize most of my moves, although I did leave out that one not-so-minor detail.

So, for the spirit of the game, I ask once again that you drop these charges. I have learned my lesson already from this incident and can promise that this will not happen again. However, I am more than ready for a trial, should you decide to further pursue this.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatica

I realize many of us are still groggy from all the vino imbibed after the wonderful opening ceremonies we had for our new Judicial Building but please refrain from arguing a case that hasn't even come to trial yet! If you must continue this discussion please take it down by the river. The housekeeping people are trying to get this place cleaned up after last night's festivities.

One note regarding judicial procedure. It is well within Chieftess's rights to ask that her accusations be withdrawn. She is welcome to do so if that is what she wants. However, in that event I would also still ask the JA to post his findings on whether plausible evidence of the charges exists.

Finally, I would like to thank our President for deciding not to formally initiate any more investigations at this time. :)

The Following is the summary of the findings in the above case.


In the absence of any secondary body of law, only the Constitution shall apply in this investigation.
There are only 2 articles of the constitution relevant to this investigation:

C.1.a.
The President shall be the designated player of the game. The President is responsible for following the legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the game.

G.
Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.

My interpretation of these articles is that:
The President is the player of the game and so he is responsible for the moves he makes. He also must follow the legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the game. In addition the President must also act according to the will of the people.

The will of the people in this case is the discussions on the fora, the results of any relevant polls, the instructions in the Instruction thread and decisions taken in the turn chat itself.

It is clear then that the President is responsible for moving the pieces that led to this problem. However to determine whether there was a violation of the Constitution the question that must be answered is did the President act against the will of the people or the instruction of a Leader in the game itself by moving the settler into harms way without an escort?

In the Instruction Thread Chieftess refers to the settler and legion as a pair indicating that they act in concert. At the beginning of the turn (430BC) the settlers and escorts were stacked together. However by (410BC) they had become separated.
Also to consider is that there were no instructions from the Military leadership on this issue in the Instruction Thread. In the absence of any objection from the military on this, I conclude that the military agreed with Chieftess on this.

The President admitted that the Instruction from Chieftess confused him and so settler and legion became separated. As a result he consulted the will of the people regarding this matter. The consensus was for it to resume its journey east. No mention was made of assigning it an escort even though the game save for 410BC was available for all to see. An assumption may have been made by all parties that there would be an escort but clarification was not sought.

In the following section of Turn Chat, there is an exchange between the President and the Deputy Military Leader regarding the Legions in the vicinity of the settler. This occurred in 370BC.

19:09] <@DX_Zoi> Archer comes out of El Armana, right next to our stack of Legions
[19:09] <+peri> have we ga d?
[19:09] <+CivGeneral> Not good, When you want to prevent a GA
[19:09] <@DX_Zoi> no, bu its decision time, I suppose I could send them all into Aureus
[19:09] <+CivGeneral> true
[19:09] <@DX_Zoi> will buy us an extra turn
[19:09] <@Chieftess> What about the workers?
[19:09] <+peri> put them out of the wat
[19:10] <+CivGeneral> But, unit movements needs to be authorized by me ;)
[19:10] <@DX_Zoi> with Lit next turn, it will give us time to discuss
[19:10] <@Chieftess> would we have to sacrifice a warrior?
[19:10] <@DX_Zoi> thats why I asked, CG
[19:10] <+CivGeneral> Ahh
[19:10] <+CivGeneral> Well, we can sacrifice a warrior
[19:10] <+CivGeneral> but that means lossing a potential Upgraded Legonare
[19:10] <@DX_Zoi> we don't have to, CT....I could just have us bunker up and have it advance in
Aureus
[19:11] <@Chieftess> DZ - hurry. My trade hungry family is starting to push me off the computer! ;)
[19:11] <@DX_Zoi> we can decide whether to attack it
[19:11] <@DX_Zoi> mine too...I am bunkering
[19:11] <+CivGeneral> 3Military Instructions: 6 Send the Legonares by that Archer into Aureus

The Military Instruction was to send the legions to Aureus. This decision had no objections. The President carried this out according to procedure. Therefore although the President did not obey the Instruction Post from Chieftess, he sought the will of the people in correcting this and sought the instruction of the Deputy Military Leader regarding the legions that could have offered it protection.

I conclude from the evidence available that although mistakes were made, the will of the people was sought to correct the error and the Deputy Military leader had the final say on the deployment of the Legions.

I recommend that there is no further action. Although Donovan Zoi admits responsibility for his actions, there is insufficient evidence that there was a violation of the Constitution.

I will second this motion on dismissal of the charges. This should be considered to have No Merit. The charges will be dismissed if the Chief Justice agrees with the JA and the PD.

The Judge Advocate has duly found that there is no plausible evidence of constitutional violation.

The Public Defendant is in agreement.

As Chief Justice I also agree that this case has no merit. The Domestic Leader has no constitutional authority to give orders to military units. There has been no poll requiring settlers to be escorted at all times. While the impending loss of a settler (if it even happens) is unfortunate, this can only be attributed to poor judgement which cannot be unconstitutional! The Judicial Department finds no wrongdoing. Case dismissed! :hammer:

The Mayor of Gorina would like to thank the Judicial Department for their expidient resolution of this matter. Bravo!

* The Mayor assigns an extra detail of city workers to help with the clean-up of the entire area. *

So, do we turn our eyes to the Deputy Military Leader?

Barring that, I thank our judicial team for the prompt action.

The matter is closed. I have already that there was no breach of the constitution.:)
In a turn chat a dept Leader's decision is final and is protected by the Constitution. Unless you have evidence that the will of the people was not adhered to, there is no basis for your allegation. Please withdraw it. :)

Thank you, gentlemen, for your time and for your swift resolution on this matter.

While I will still enter Friday's chat with heavy heart, it will at least be nice to know that this cloud has been lifted. From here on out, I will do everything in my power to ensure that I won't have to stand before you again.

Regarding Octavian's idea of summoning the Military Deputy, I feel it is best that we close this matter entirely and not look to others for blame. As I've said before, I bear full responsibilty for my actions.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatica

I don't want to bring this matter back up, I was simply confirming with the Bench that the matter was closed entirely. I was hoping that no further action was needed.

I don't see any evidence that the Deputy Military Leader acted unconstitutionally. As long as not other accusations of wrong doing are formally made then no further action will be taken by this department.

Judicial Review has been requested by Octavian on the matter of Governor appointments. Here is my ruling on this issue:
I hereby find that, under Article D of our constitution, a special election is required to appoint new leaders. Nominations and elections must occur in order to appoint a new leader, in this case, a governor, mid-term. This finding will hold true for any position received after a term begins because no person ran for a position. I also find that in the case of positions won uncontested, no election is required to fill the position, due to the fact that nominations were posted and only one person ran. (plus, an election where there was only one candidate and Abstain is somewhat ridiculous). I also encourage the Chief Justice to start a Judicial log on the findings of the Judiciary.

Judicial Review has been requested by Octavian on the matter of Governor appointments.

The word appointment in any form is not to be found in our constitution. This in and of itself (under certain interpretations) would not make the appointment of governors unconstitutional. However, article D of the constitution clearly states:

D. All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

Since the office of governor is a constitutionally recognized office, article D clearly makes the appointment of governors unconstitutional.

Governors must be elected. There is no constitutional stipulation for regular elections as opposed to special elections. So long as there is an election to fill the governor's position and the term is fixed (i.e., stipulated in the election process and fixed as opposed to open ended) then there is no need to decide if said election is regular or special as it would be constitutionally valid, which is all that is required.

It doesn't really matter whether we call it a regular or special election. I will consider you to have concurred with my findings unless you state otherwise. Now, we just need to wait for Peri.

Article D is clear. An election must be held to fill an office. The person elected serves for a fixed term.

Ruling
Any provinces created during a term of office must have a governor which is elected by the people to serve for a fixed term.
The elections must be held in accordance with custom and precedence.
The term of office cannot exceed the calender month in accordance with the custom and precedence.

I would add that the term "fixed term" does not require that that term be a full month, merely that it be a designated period. Logically this would be until the next election.

I agree with that, AJ.

Originally posted by Peri
Ruling
Any provinces created during a term of office must have a governor which is elected by the people to serve for a fixed term.
The elections must be held in accordance with custom and precedence.
The term of office cannot exceed the calender month in accordance with the custom and precedence.

The Judicial Department seems to be in agreement that governors cannot be appointed and must be elected.

I would disagree with the last sentence of Peri's ruling, in that I think a term longer than one calender month is constitutional. However, it is not up to the judicial department to set the length of terms, that is a job for our citizens as a whole.

I have to agree with the last sentence of Peri's review. I think the terms should be required to end at the end of each calendar month. Do you want to poll this issue, Donsig?

I don't think a poll is needed. As long as the governor is elected to a fixed term I (as CJ) will be satisfied. My only concern here is that the Judicial Department does not start legislating from the bench. The constitution calls for fixed elections and goes no further. If the people want to follow the customs of the past and fix the terms to the calender month that is all well and good. If however, they choose something new (i.e., a one month term irregardless of the start of the term, or an initial term that includes part of the current month and all of the next month, or a term based on game turns) then that would be all well and good, too.

Where the constitution is specific the judiciary can rule narrowly, where the constitution is general or silent then the judiciary must rule broadly.

To summarize, IMO, it is ok to have the initial term for a new province's governor to expire at the end of the calender month during which the election takes place, but that is not required by our constitution.

Quoting donsig:
The constitution calls for fixed elections and goes no further.
____________________________________________

:lol: Ya know donsig, I have been wondering about that for three Demogames now :lol: .

My apologies for causing any confusion. My interpretation was based on custom and precedence and was not in any way an interpretation of the constitution. The constitution makes no provision for length of terms and so it is up to the will of the people.

I just want to stress that the Judiciary does not in any way seek to narrowly define articles of the constitution which are broad in scope.

On a more serious note, I would like to say the the framers of the Constitution intended the phrase "fixed Term" to mean a constant 30 day cycle based on each calendar month. This kept things simple and easy to understand. It also reduced the amount of laws and surely the amount of debate surrounding the elections of our Government officials. I believe trying to make this phrase mean anything else by expanding it or loosening the implied guideline will only cause problems.

I must disagree with you Mayor Cyc. I am one of the framers of the constitution and I can say it was not my intention for the constitutional phrase "fixed term" to imply an election cycle *fixed* on the real calender months. I have long been an opponent of the monthly election cycle, prefering terms based on a fixed number of game turns. Article D of our current constitution was rewritten from the DG2 constitution to remove references to the calender based terms. This was done to allow our citizens more flexibility in setting terms. This of course was in line with the general mind set of having only a constitution without the old CoL and CoS. We wanted to be able to be more flexible so as to be able to run the government and the demogame more smoothly.

I also do not think that breaking away from the rigid calender month system would have to be all that confusing. One way of doing so for the particular case of a new province created mid-term, is to elect an initial governor to serve out the remainder of the current month as well as all of the next month. After that that province's governor can be included in the regular election cycle. This is only one way of doing things slightly different. This specific suggestion does not seem too confusing while the its benefits should be easy to discern.

You are absolutely right, Chief Justice donsig. I remember wishing you the best of luck on that turn-based Term proposal, whether it was a mental note or I indeed posted it, I'm not sure, but I did think that it would be interesting to try. But none the less, it was shot down and the loosening of the Guideline was all that surfaced after the debate, leaving, as you say, the opportunity of change.

So in essence, the calender-based Term did survive, with the possibility of change allowed. So in order for the election process to allow a different kind of Term, the "intent" of the Constitution would have to be changed. :) I love a good debate.

@ donsig. Well, I disagree with you my man. I can't see Presidents coming into office and determining the length of any Term they see fit too. Because, as you say, there is no defining law or standard to guide us in this matter of "fixed term" lengths or formats, our entire electoral system could be up for random change at any time, by any governing body. Kinda sounds like Anarchy to me. Universally accepted practices and standards based on previous Constitutions or laws setting precednce seems much more like a stable Government to me. I'm not arguing about your end result, I'm arguing about how you get there :D

Man, I just posted a reply to donsig an this crazy forum posted up in reply #48. Too weird.

I think the intent of the constitution, as embodied by article D, is to provide a basic framework (i.e., officers are elected to fixed terms), around which we (as citizens) can build our government as we see fit. We can do this building in many ways. We can stick with tradition or break it if we come up with a better way of doing things.

The election of governors to new provinces is something that will come up again. I suggest we put great thought into how we handle this first case for it may well determine how we handle all the rest. Is the old way the best way? Is there a better way? Should we pass legislation dictating how the first governor of future provinces will be elected and what the initial term will be?

Personally, I liked it better when we had laws and standards that said things like "when a new Province has 3 cities in it, the President will appoint a Governor to preside over the Province until the end of that Term. At that time an election will be held to elect the Governor of the next Term." I believe that's the way it should be, to reduce red tape and expidite the procedure.

If we want to change the meaning of the phrase "fixed Terms", then that is a different can of worms all together. With this Constitution we have now, that is entirely possible (what I mean by this is changing from the calendar based Terms to turn based Terms). But if we were to do this, we would just be attaching a new CoL or CoS to the Constitution. Then you would have to ask yourself, "was it worth the trouble to change the procedure if we shot ourselves in the foot by creating new laws and standards." Why did you reduce the beurocracy if you just need to increase the red tape to enjoy the reduction in the first place? Ya know? Let's make some laws that say we're going to have less laws.

Originally posted by Peri
I would argue that the current interpretation of Article G is that the will of the people must be sought. No one has challenged this yet so I feel obliged to disagree with you.

Article G states: Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.

This can indeed be interpreted to mean that the will of the people must be sought out. I tend to agree that on major issues input fro the people should be sought before decisions are made. A prime example would be asking the people what should be done in the event another country tries extorting tribute from us. I do not agree that our leaders should have to ask specific permission for every issue that requires attention. I cannot sit at this judicial bench and claim to know where to draw the line between those things that should be polled ahead of time and those that need not be. Where that line should be must eventually be drawn by the people themselves and surely the line will move with the ages. But there is such a line and we will never fix its place unless our officials start taking some needed initiative. They will take their lumps as they inadvertanly cross the line here and there but that is part of being a (good) leader.

Originally posted by Peri
In defence of Domestic, a comprehensive map was drawn up, but it got pulled apart in the thread and AJ was compelled to poll separately. I admit my own culpability in this. The problem with proposing something big as you suggest is that someone will shoot down the whole proposal because he/she disagrees with a small part of it. Therefore it seems to take less time and be more straightforward to break something up into bitesize proposals. I would argue that this is not so much red tape and bureaucracy as democracy in action.

I think I have not made my point clear on how I think provinces should be defined. I think the President (or the Domestic Leader) should decide what provincial borders to use (taking into account any input already made by citizens), draw up a map with said borders, present it to the country in a post and voila they would be the de facto provinces and the business of governing could then continue without missing a beat. I think it is essential to good government to get provinces defined and up and running quickly. The best way to do so is to have one responsible leader make the border decisions and move on.

Would this process be constitutional? The constitution is silent on the creation of provinces. There is the article G umbrella which staes leaders must plan and act according to the will of the people but as I argued earlier in this post that does not mean our leaders must always ask specific permission for every decision they wish to implement. So long as the provincial borders that are set do no conflict with the previously documented *will of the people* I do not see how borders unilaterally set by the Presiedent or Domestic Leader could be construed as unconstitutional.

Would allowing the President or Domestic Leader the power to instantly create provincial borders take power away from the people? No. Allowing a government official to set inititial provincial borders is not the same as allowing that official to change provincial borders willy-nilly once they are set. This in turn does not mean that provincial borders cannot be changed at all once set by the leader. The people can always discuss the borders that have been set and if they are found unsatisfactory the people can change them.

IMHO, it would be much more efficient to allow a leader to create new provinces and then let the citizens make adjustments as they see fit afterwards. The creation of provinces is a prime example of an area of the constitution that needs defining via legislation.

Originally posted by Peri
I would argue that the current interpretation of Article G is that the will of the people must be sought. No one has challenged this yet so I feel obliged to disagree with you.

I spent 20 minutes typing a well thought out reply to this only to have it disappear. :( Well, I will try to reconstruct it now.

EDIT: Arghhhhh!!! My post is there! So I'm wiping out my reconstruction!

EDIT AGAIN: Must be that time stamp voodoo. My reply to Peri's post ended up three or four posts before his post! :crazyeye:

But there is such a line and we will never fix its place unless our officials start taking some needed initiative. They will take their lumps as they inadvertanly cross the line here and there but that is part of being a (good) leader.

I completely agree with you on this point and wish to add to the clamour for Leaders to take the iniative in finding this line. As you have said before, where the scope is broad we will rule accordingly. However these rulings serve only to entrench broad interpretations and set precedents for being vague. as a result we will tread the same ground repeatedly.
Do you have any suggestions for prompting our Leaders to be more bold?

By the way. Is there any merit in starting a thread which summarises our rulings so citizens wont ask us to rule repeatedly on the same subject using the broad scope of the Constitiution as an umbrella for their reqiest?

Why did you reduce the beurocracy if you just need to increase the red tape to enjoy the reduction in the first place?

Who ever said the red tape has to be increased? I think we all tried setting our legal system up so that those taking the initiative in seeking changes for the better are not penalized as long as they adhere to the constitution. Our President did take the initiative in this case by trying to get a governor in place ASAP for a new province. His idea was to appoint a governor which was unanimously ruled unconstitutional by the judiciary. The only point of the judicial ruling in this case is that *governors must be elected for a fixed term*.

Now, does that make more red tape? No. Hold an election for governor and stipulate the fixed term to be served. No red tape, no muss, no fuss. The president could have taken that ruling, named a slate of at least two citizens, named a fixed term (whatever it might be), posted an election poll, and voila we'd have have a new governor. It's the mind set from the old demogames that our officials can do nothing unless they get some sort of prior citizen approval that leads us into the dreaded Red Tape Jungle. While it is true that our officials cannot take steps that are against the will of the people as embodied in previous forum threads and polls, it is not true that citizen approval must be sought for every change our government seeks to make.

Sometimes our officials just need to step up to the plate and swing. Sometimes they'll strike out, sometiomes they'll hit a grand slam. But if they never grab a bat then nothing gets done.

Take a look at the pathetic way we define our provinces. We even had in the old CoL that provinces had to be defined well in advance. Provinces must be defined promptly during times of expansion. We recognized this long ago and even codified it. Yet, we've never been able to efficiently define our provinces. Here was a perfect opportunity for someone to take the bull by the horns. Our president or domestic leader could have just made up a map and drawn provincial boundaries and we'd have had 'em in place long ago. I even posted somewhere that if one of them did that I would rule it constitutional if a judicial review was requested. No red tape, just do it. No one had the guts to do it and we went through the same old process of polling, repolling, etc. to fix a province's borders.

The beauracracy and red tape has been taken away. It only survives in the hearts and heads of our citizens.

Originally posted by donsig


The only point of the judicial ruling in this case is that *governors must be elected for a fixed term*.
<snip>
Hold an election for governor and stipulate the fixed term to be served.

Here's the beauty of the current constitution. It does not state how the fixed term is to be defined, it merely says the term has to be fixed. Theoretically, the length of the term could be fixed as part of the election process, by stating the term as part of the election poll. To take it to the extreme, every term could have a different length.

It would even be possible to have different offices on different election cycles using this logic. That would not be a very good idea, but there does not appear to be anything in the law to prevent it..

it is not true that citizen approval must be sought for every change our government seeks to make.

I would argue that the current interpretation of Article G is that the will of the people must be sought. No one has challenged this yet so I feel obliged to disagree with you.
In defence of Domestic, a comprehensive map was drawn up, but it got pulled apart in the thread and AJ was compelled to poll separately. I admit my own culpability in this. The problem with proposing something big as you suggest is that someone will shoot down the whole proposal because he/she disagrees with a small part of it. Therefore it seems to take less time and be more straightforward to break something up into bitesize proposals. I would argue that this is not so much red tape and bureaucracy as democracy in action.

I replied to Peri's post here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1051786#post1051786)

But there is such a line and we will never fix its place unless our officials start taking some needed initiative. They will take their lumps as they inadvertanly cross the line here and there but that is part of being a (good) leader.

I completely agree with you on this point and wish to add to the clamour for Leaders to take the iniative in finding this line. As you have said before, where the scope is broad we will rule accordingly. However these rulings serve only to entrench broad interpretations and set precedents for being vague. as a result we will tread the same ground repeatedly.
Do you have any suggestions for prompting our Leaders to be more bold?

By the way. Is there any merit in starting a thread which summarises our rulings so citizens wont ask us to rule repeatedly on the same subject using the broad scope of the Constitiution as an umbrella for their reqiest?

We had one of those in previous democracy games under the old Code of Laws, the Judicial Log. It was a stickied thread in the main forum.

What do you think, donsig? Should we bring out another blast from the past? I certainly wouldn't object to an official record of rulings. With these timestamps from a parallel universe, it would be a great help. :D

I believe we need to have a Judicial Log to record our decisions and prevent the same issue from occurring several times. We need to state how the Judiciary has ruled in the past to advise us on constitutional decisions in the future.

Judical Reveiw Request - 3rd Runner up Possition Elegability

I have sent in my Application to DZ to have me be VP. During the TC today there was a bit of discussion about it and Ill post some clips from the log that I have.


[16:15] <+CivGeneral> Umm, DZ, did you get my application for VP?
[16:15] <+DX_Zoi> yes
[16:15] <+donsig> oh no, we don't have a veep?
[16:16] <+DX_Zoi> no, was making sure CT wasnt coming back
[16:16] <+donsig> hmmm.... how to replace a veep?
[16:17] <+DX_Zoi> not yet CG.....I have to post a confirmation poll
[16:17] <+donsig> are you planning on APPOINTING someone Mr. President?
[16:17] <+DX_Zoi> donsig, I am going to take the ball and run with it, as it were ; D
[16:18] <+DX_Zoi> for an unelected position? of course
[16:18] <+donsig> we've already ruled that officials must be elected
[16:18] <+donsig> sure it is, just like any other deputy
[16:19] <+DX_Zoi> I thought the lack of laws was supposed to make things easier......
[16:19] <+CivGeneral> DZ - That is what I thoght
[16:19] <@Falcon02> so they thought
[16:20] <+DX_Zoi> I will test the constitutionality of my appoitment, then, I guess...
[16:20] <+donsig> the constitution is clear on officials being elected
[16:20] <+donsig> well, why not try something much easier?
[16:23] <+donsig> I'll tell you right now it won't stand - why not save us all some work and hear my suggestion?
[16:24] <+donsig> It would seem that since we name the runner up in the election the deputy we can just continue along that line and name the third place candidate to replace the runner up
[16:24] <+donsig> that neatly side steps the appointment issue
[16:24] <+RikMeleet> That sounds fair to me. Who is the runner-up ?
[16:25] <+DX_Zoi> hehe.its CG
[16:25] <+donsig> CivGeneral tied Chieftess for second in the last presidential election
[16:25] <+CivGeneral> :)
[16:25] * +CivGeneral hears CG and pops up :)


I would like to see if this is Legal and follows along with the consitution. If not, I would like for a Duscussion in this matter to be proposed so that we can add this.

I believe that the Vice President should be appointed in the same manner as any other deputy (as well as chat reps and other offices) when an office is vacant after the term starts...by appointment and a confirmation poll. Therefore, I find that the third place candidate in an election does not automatically become the new deputy (in this case the Vice President) and that a new Vice President must be appointed and confirmed in the same manner as any other post-election deputy appointee.

NOTE: I do want CG to be the new VP, but I believe that he must be appointed and confirmed.

It is difficult to hold an election for a position which is not recognised by the Constitution. However Civ General polled the 3rd highest number of votes in the recent election. Therefore he does have a popular mandate. It would not be unconstitutional for Civ General to deputise for the President when it is required.

Our third judicial review deals (once again) with the appointment of officials. As in the previous reviews I will quote article D of our constitution:

All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

Given article D, the appointment of leaders is unconstitutional.

While the office of the Vice President is not specifically named in the constitution, the VP is the well recognized deputy to the President. Deputies are also not constitutionally recognized but are an established part of our government. Deputies are the runners-up in the various elections. The theory behind this is that if the candidate chosen by the people becomes unavailable for the office in question then the candidate recieving the second most votes should be considered the people's choice to step in and take over the office. It is the inclusion of the various deputies in the elections that makes their position constitutional.

The use of deputies is an efficient (and constitutional) means of filling vacancies that arise mid-term. The efficiency arises from the fact that seperate, special mid-term elections are avoided. An appointment and confirmation process is also avoided. Vacanies are filled promptly in this manner.

Extending this idea to fill deputy positions is not only constitutional and efficient, it just plain makes sense. Therefore my finding is that when a deputy position is vacated the candidate who recieved the next largest number of votes (after the absent deputy) should automatically be moved into the vacant deputy spot.

Given the findings of the three judicial members, our ruling is that CivGeneral (the recipient of the next number of votes after Chieftess in the recent Presidential election) is now the Vice President, no confirmation poll being required.

I fully agree with this ruling. In my personal view of the situation, CG is now not only qualified, but offically the Vice President. Good work again Judicial Dept.

Wow, a wonder full supprise :). I am the new Vice President.

Donsig and Peri, do either of you have any objections to a Judicial Log? I will gladly create one and I will copy and paste judicial reviews to the log, if it is okay with you.

That would be great Boots. A summary of the ruling and the evidence for it would be an excellent point of reference for our citizens.

Originally posted by bootstoots
Donsig and Peri, do either of you have any objections to a Judicial Log? I will gladly create one and I will copy and paste judicial reviews to the log, if it is okay with you.

I have no objections to this.

[pops in]
This message is mainly for Donsig, but your all welcome to join in. We've revamped the RPG so it follows the player system again. That means no more suddenly dying. Donsig, we need all the storytellers we can get and you were one of the top tellers/businessmen of the prior RPG.
[/popsout]

Note-The judicial log is up and running. You can visit it here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1058631#post1058631)

Thank you, gentlemen, for your timely response regarding the Vice-Presidential situation. While I will stand by your decision, I would just like to state that I disagree with your ruling.

While in the case presented here it makes sense(a close race for second place), what about the instances where a third-place place candidate only recieved one or two votes? Can we really say that that candidate would be the people's choice? Can you see the can of worms we can open here?

I have never been a big fan of Article D and now it is becoming very apparent why a change to our Constitution may be necessary. It is just too vague. And I am not very comfortable with our solution.

Unfortunately, I may not have the time to open a discussion this weekend on this matter, but if someone would like to do so, it would be much appreciated.

DZ, here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56466) is a constitutional amendment you may be interested in.

I would like to formally commend bootstoots for the excellent job he did in creating the judicial log! :goodjob:

I would also like to remind our president that this is a democracy game and not an appointment game. We have had three judicial reviews now where appointments were found to be unconstitutional. I stand by these findings since allowing the president the power to appoint officials takes too much power away from the people even when appointments must be confirmed. Couple this with the idea of the president being able to remove absent officials and we are on the proverbial slipperly slope which would transform the demogame into the despogame.

I see nothing different between a second place candidate who recieves one vote becoming deputy and a third or fourth place candidate who recieves one vote becoming deputy because the other candidates have dropped out of sight. Do you see the can of worms you are proposing to open, Mr. President?

I have never been a fan of the runner-up as deputy idea. Some ancient demogamers may recall the troubles back in DG1 when the domestic leader and domestic deputy were at odds. Perhaps we need a new systems for electing deputies. We've never tried electing a leader/deputy team, probably because that is too much like having the dreaded political parties. We could concievably extend the concept to electing a team of 3 or 4 citizens to department so long as the CoC within the department is specified as part of the election process. This might even lead to some new citizens running for office as part of the team and working their way up, rather than having the same old people in office permanently until they lose interest, get caught up in real life or just plain quit.

My point is that there are many efficient ways to keep our governmental departments running smoothly and ensure our officials are elected. We do not have to resort to a system of appointing citizens to office.

Originally posted by donsig

I see nothing different between a second place candidate who recieves one vote becoming deputy and a third or fourth place candidate who recieves one vote becoming deputy because the other candidates have dropped out of sight. Do you see the can of worms you are proposing to open, Mr. President

To me, this is still the easy way out, and does not always reflect the will of the people. Article D must be expanded.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

To me, this is still the easy way out, and does not always reflect the will of the people. Article D must be expanded.

Presidential appointments will also not always reflect the will of the people. Article D is fine. If you wish to do something different (like hold mid-term elections for vacant offices) then this can be done by passing legislation to define article D.

I am calling Judicial Review on the issue of whether Plexus can appoint Octavian as Deputy Governor of Aventine Province despite the fact that AJ placed second in the previous Aventine elections, and Oct never ran. The poll can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56888) the Aventine Province site is here (http://vectec.net/plexus/aventprovince/index.htm) and the Aventine thread where the appointment took place is here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1066438#post1066438).

I hereby find that Octavian's appointment as Deputy Governor is unconstitutional based on previous findings and rulings. For instance, in our first Judicial Review, the Judiciary found that the Public Defender could not appoint a Pro-Tem defender in his place during a vacation. In our third review, the Judiciary decided unanimously that a governor had to be elected rather than appointed during a mid-term election. And in our fourth Judicial Review, the ascendance of the third-place candidate to the deputy's spot was found to be constitutional.

In accordance with custom and precidence, the Deputy has always been the first runner-up in an election, unless a person was running uncontested. This is how it has been done, to my knowledge To find against that will throw the system out entirely, making so that the VP among others is a gift position. And if the third-place candidate ascends to the deputy's position in the event of a vacancy, then the second place candidate could ascend to the leader's position, making so that the second-place candidate would automatically be the deputy, the one who can fill in an office in the event of a vacancy. However, in this case, the Deputy was appointed despite the fact that AJ placed second in the elections. If AJ declined, either Civanator or Sir John, the third place candidates (tied) would become the new deputy. Therefore, there is no basis for the appointment of a deputy when the elections were contested.

I am calling Judicial Review on the issue of whether Plexus can appoint Octavian as Deputy Governor of Aventine Province... (Posted by bootstoots)

Article D (the least read article in our constitution) reads:

All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

While it is true that deputies are not addressed in our constitution they are an integral part of our government. Previous judicial reviews have upheld their existence and have begun to define a 'chain of command', so to speak based on election results. In line with previous judicial reviews I concur with the review posted by bootstoots.

I find the appointment of Octavian X (a fine, upstanding citizen) as deputy governor to be unconstitutional. In the absense of Governor Plexus, Almightyjosh would be considered next in line to run the province. In both their absences, Civanator and Sir John would be next in line. Since these last two tied in the recent election Governor Plexus should post a run-off poll between these two to establish seniority should he and Almightyjosh not be available.

I refer to previous rulings on Article D. Not that I am tired of addressing the same points over and over ;)

I would like to contest your ruling regarding the appointment of Aventine's Deputy Governor.

While I can understand that the constitution is clearly stated in regards to having an election for a vacant leader position(should no deputy be available), I am asking that we not consider Article D in Plexus' case and let the appointment stand. You see, Article D states that "All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms."

Since the Constitution does not recognize deputies and the Governor's Office is already filled by Plexus, I don't see any reason not to continue following DG2 precedent for our deputy selection. Since deputies are not recognized by our Constitution, there is no Deputy's Office.

If this ruling stands, I think we should heretofore refer to the court's previous ruling on Article D as the "trickle down" electoral process. I still don't see how outright giving the 3rd and 4th place vote-getter a deputy position(or even worse, a leader position if circumstances warrant) reflects the will of the people more than submitting a new candidate via the confirmation process that the people themselves can vote on. But since that we have thrown DG2 precedent out the window with the court's previous ruling, it looks like this is precisely what we will have.

Oh, and by the way, AJ has also resigned as Domestic Leader due to continuing computer problems, so am I to assume that the position is now Fionn's with no confirmation necessary? If I am reading your previous ruling correctly, that is precisely what would happen. Can you honestly tell me with certainty that this process reflects the will of the people?

I would say Yes, DZ. If the people had not wanted Fionn to run for Domestic, they would have objected to the point where his name was removed from the ballot. Fionn had the heuvos to put his name on the list of candidates for the Domestic Leader. Therefore it was also his will, as a citizen that is reflected in this move. In this light, I would say Yes, it is the will of the people.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Since the Constitution does not recognize deputies and the Governor's Office is already filled by Plexus, I don't see any reason not to continue following DG2 precedent for our deputy selection. Since deputies are not recognized by our Constitution, there is no Deputy's Office.


The Constitution recognises Leaders only. In the absence of Plexus, his appointed choice would become governor. The Deputy Governor would become the Governor without having been elected in the proper manner. This is where Article D comes in. The clear bias of a confirmation poll predisposes the citizens to vote yes.

Oh, and by the way, AJ has also resigned as Domestic Leader due to continuing computer problems, so am I to assume that the position is now Fionn's with no confirmation necessary? If I am reading your previous ruling correctly, that is precisely what would happen. Can you honestly tell me with certainty that this process reflects the will of the people?


There is a precedent that may be relevant here. In the recent Trade election Boots polled third but because CT declined the position, Octavian became Leader. In the absence of Octavian would there have been any objection to Boots becoming Trade Leader even though he polled third? I think unlikely mainly because CT declined immediately upon election and Boots was considered Deputy Trade Leader during Term 2. What I am trying to say is that in the election process, the highest polled candidate who accepts the position becomes Leader. It is possible due to other election results that the eventual Leader for a certain position could actually poll third or lower.
All I can do is interpret the Constitution as it is laid out.
Perhaps you should sponsor a law to clarify Article D then we wont have these confusions. :)

While our constitution does not specifically mention deputies we have used them since the start of DG3. Since deputies are the runners up in the various elections the judiciary has always interpreted this as fullfilling the election requirements of article D. The judiciary has pointed out many times that since deputies have the power to act for their respective leaders they do indeed fall under the restrictions of article D. Thus, appointments to the position of deputy leader are unconstitutional.

Governors are leaders just as department leaders are leaders. The need for duputies is the same and there is no constitutional reason to to treat deputy governors differently than we treat departmental deputies.

The 'trickle down' theory of elections is not the best solution but in the absence of legislation by Congress defining article D it is the most efficient. There are other ways of selecting deputies, both during our regular election cycle and mid-term. Since this is my last day on the bench I think it would not be inappropriate for me to offer a suggestion here:

If there is a deputy vacancy mid-term, hold a special election to fill the office. As long as the election is for a fixed term, this would satisfy article D. Would it really take that much longer to have nominations and an election versus an appointment and confirmation poll?