This is a confirmation poll for CivGeneral as Pro-Tem Public Defender. He will serve when I'm absent, from June 17-27 (approximately). The appointment can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54846). This poll will be open for 48 hours.

I always support a new face for a new position, if the person has proven him/her self.

There are no constitutional grounds for a pro-tem position and I therefore submit that this poll is invalid.

Article C of our constitution states:

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.


Since the CJ can fill in for either lower position there is no need for this poll.

This poll is not unconstitutional. Simply because the CJ can fill in for a lower position doesn't mean they must. There is ample precident in the last two demogames for this to be accepted practice. The CJ can fill in, but it says nothing against appointing a Pro-Tem Defender or JA.

Actually, this leads to a larger debate, one in which I've yet to determine an opinion.

Are we to follow the letter of the law, sticking strictly to what our constitution says, black and white? Or must we follow the spirit of the law, using reasonable guildlines?

With the letter, you paradoxically make our ridding of the old CoL and CoS useless, and even argue against the very existance of deputy leaders (a term not even used by our constitution).

Following the spirit of the law, you allow for more freedom from procedure, therby more freedom for all in general. However, without limit to that freedom, you open up a door toward disorder and anarchy.

(Believe it or not, I'm looking for a nice political debate. Things have been boring recently)

I believe that even if a pro-tem position were allowed in an instance like this, the Chief justice would be the one to appoint a replacement. I don't believe the Public Defender or the Judge Advocate should be allowed to dole out the responsibilities of their office. So either way you look at it, donsig would take the reigns here.

As far as your question, Octavian X, the drive to reduce the amount of laws and standards for Fanatica was founded on the assumption that people would use common sense, a semblance of politeness, and adhere to customary or common law practices. Just because a law isn't written down doesn't mean that it isn't generally accepted as a standard practice. You're right, though in the sense that we have no where to turn to in cases where the law is not laid out for us to read. As stated by donsig above, this is not one of those cases.

Bloody hell... I can't secure an appointment to even a possibly non-existent position these days :crazyeye:

I would certainly support following the spirit of the law rather than the letter. The main reason that we went for a restricted ruleset was that the people would employ common sense in deciding. This clearly shows that the people are to decide by the spirit of the law, by using common sense, rather than the letter. Therefore, in this case, the spirit of the law should definately be supported. By following the letter of the law, as would be done by rejecting the position of Pro-Tem Judicial members, would also deny the existance of Deputy positions, Chat Reps, Mayorships, positions such as History Officer, and all other positions not defined in the Constitution. Also, the Constitution does not forbid any of these positions. I also ask why the Chief Justice must appoint the Pro-Tem Judicial members. Shouldn't the member that is leaving appoint their own temporary replacement?

I believe we did that last game when Shaitan was busy for a bit. Cyc was appointed as a temporary fill in. One could argue that we need a discussion first, however, we DID only bring over the skeleton of our convuluted DG2 constitution.

I like to get right to the heart of matters, look at them as black and white. While I realize not everything is black and white for there are an infinite number of shades of grey and even colors such as red and blue and yellow it can sometimes be useful distilling things down to black and white.
Here is the black and white of constitutional interpretation as I see it. Under a strict interpretation we are only allowed to do what is actually authorized in the constitution. The opposite interpretation (so to speak) would be that we can do any thing the constitution does not forbid.
Of course things are never that simple. Our constitution specifically allows certain things (like the judicial branch). It also specifically disallows certain things (like violating forum rules). The document is silent on many more things (such as filling absences). When an issue comes to the forefront and the constitution is silent on it we must use our judgement. We must also remember the world is neither black and white nor black and white and grey. We must use many means at our disposal to fill in the constitutional gaps. In addition to deciding which constitutional interpretation to use we should also fall back on precedent, the intent of those who framed the constitution and the current needs of our country.

I don't think I declared this process unconstitutional. I believe I said there was no constitutional authority for the process. In other words it is not specifically stated in the constitution that a judicial member can appoint a temporary replacement. Furthermore, in my opinion, the fact that the constitution does state that the CJ can fill in for either lower position seems to me to preclude the appointment of temporary justices.

For the sake of argument I will address the other three aspects briefly. First of all there is the intent of the framers. We chose not to carry over the COL and COS and we did so because there are some clauses in them that we did not wish to carry over into our new country. The practice of having pro tem juctices may or may not be one we want to continue but this is for the citizens to decide.
Second, if it is decided to adhere to the precedents of DG1 and DG2 then we should research just what those precedents actually are. I served as a pro tem justice in DG2 but IIRC I was appointed by the CJ.
Third and last, there is the needs of our country. I do not see a pressing need for pro tem justices. Face it, business has been slow in the judicial department. :)

I agree that there is not a pressing need for pro tem judiciary members. The main reason this was here was to allow people (such as CG) who have never been in the Judiciary to experience it. Plus, for all I know, things may heat up in the Judiciary. You said that it is not unconstitutional. Are you saying that we can appoint pro tem justices but that you're opposed to it?

He'd only really experience Judiciary service if a pressing need for pro-tem members arose, so I'm not sure I understand that argument.

Originally posted by bootstoots
I agree that there is not a pressing need for pro tem judiciary members. The main reason this was here was to allow people (such as CG) who have never been in the Judiciary to experience it. Plus, for all I know, things may heat up in the Judiciary. You said that it is not unconstitutional. Are you saying that we can appoint pro tem justices but that you're opposed to it?

I did not say the appointment of pro tem justices is not unconstitutional. I said there is no constitutional authority for it. I also tried pointing out that this means the constitutionality of pro tem justices is subject to one's interpretation of the constitution. I implied rather heavily that my interpretation is such that I would rule pro tem justices to be unconstitutional if the matter was put up for a judicial review.

Okay, I abstained from this poll. There seems to be a question of how to interpret the constitution. As I understand it, th CJ is the primary person to interpret the constitution. What seems to be needed is the setting up a new COL and COS. I seem to remember a number of posts trying to talk about how to create a new COL and COS. To me, no matter what else, this still a game, and successful games have established set of rules that designed to enhance the play of the game for the enjoyment of all the players. I'm starting to ramble a bit so I'll cut this short.

This poll is closed.
Please could this thread be locked.

There is no assessment for this poll because it was withdrawn