Here is a starting point for Article F -- discussion?


Article F. The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice
and two Associate Justices. These three justices are
tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting
laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed
by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional
responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the
Judicial Branch.

In this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=93998) it was decided by the people to use a CJ/PD/JA structure for the Judiciary in DG5.

This would probably include the original structure where it was all open door policy and the different Justices posted their own Opinions. ;)

seems as though we can start a poll to change this one to CJ/JA/PD pretty soon, judging by the near unamimous support by the citizens

I interpreted the result of the poll that Cyc quoted as meaning we wanted the judiciary to work exactly like DG3 in all respects. We will need to codify a JR and PI/CC procedure, hopefully before we have a JR or PI/CC to process. :)

I knew you were going to say that DS, that's why I made the comment in the posted poll. If we have the CJ/PD/JA then they should act as the original intent and not some experimental kangaroo kourt....

Hmm, as I remember it, in DG3 the justices posted their own opinions. The CJ then posted the official decision based on those opinions.

That sounds good to me.

Hmm, as I remember it, in DG3 the justices posted their own opinions. The CJ then posted the official decision based on those opinions.

To begin with, DG3 Judicial matters were a joke at best. T1 had donsig as CJ, who's Term had no action as people seemed to by tired of the Justice system. So T1 had nothing. T2 saw a return of donsig and included some minor discussions toward the end of the Term. T3 was a fiasco CJ'd by Peri. Not only did we have about 6 PD/JA Justices float in and out, the entire Judicial process was heavily structured by Moderator action.

Term 4 saw Peri return to the CJ position and this is when the private meetings started. This is also when the Judicial system started posting Opinions like "I agree" or "I concur with so and so". I could train monkeys to type "I agree". But then again that is what the Judiciary turned themselves into during Term 4. They'd get together in ravensfire's little Yahoo home page (whatever you want to call it, ravensfire) worked the matter in private having one person come up with a written opinion (probably ravensfire) and then the other two would post "I agree". Useless. In fact in Term 5, when zorven was CJ (he had served under Peri in Term 4), Peri posted this in defense of a Judicial Review that only he had written about. Peri's description of Term 4 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1217423&postcount=10)

So half way through DG3 the Judicial Branch changes horses without telling anyone about it. BTW, which half of DG3 are you basing your platform on? Or aren't you going to tell us?

Just so everyone knows, the secretive, behind-closed-doors policy was established in secret. Once they found out they could get away with it because, at that point the DG3 Judicial system was so screwed up the citizens didn't care, they continued the rest of the game and then made it part of the Constitution in DG4. Good thing ravensfire had donsig slowing everything down prior to the start of the game (and I'm not saying you had donsig doing it, I'm just saying you were lucky), cause when it came time to move the DG4 Judicial system through, I was not only to tired to care, but there was no time to iron everything out.

Now DaveShack wants to rush this thing through basing it on the worst Demogame (as far as Judicial systems go). You people think DG4 Terms 1 and 2 were bad. HA! You should have see DG3.

DaveShack you will have to clarify exactly what you mean when you talk about the Judicial system in DG5. We will have no more secretive backroom meetings and 1 post for a Majority Opinion. This "I agree" crap is not what one expects to hear from a Justice. And anyone who thinks that's what a Justice is supposed to say doesn't know what a Justice is and needs to do some reading. All three Justices need to post their feelings on whether a law was broken or the meaning of a law or both in every Judicial issue.

Canned, we already voted on the old system.

cyc: was DG3 Rome? if so I remember storming out of the game after term 2.

I beleive it was rome..

Yes, I stood in my palacial gardens atop the Hills of Gorina and watched Rome burn in Term 3...

Proposed Poll For article F


Article F. The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public
Defender and an Associate Judge Advocate. These three justices
are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting
laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed
by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional
responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the
Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as council to an
accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

Excellent wording, Immortal. Good work, overall too.

I agree to Immortal's version

So half way through DG3 the Judicial Branch changes horses without telling anyone about it. BTW, which half of DG3 are you basing your platform on? Or aren't you going to tell us?

Just so everyone knows, the secretive, behind-closed-doors policy was established in secret.

Hold on just a minute -- I know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about. Thank you for the history lesson, because I have a feeling that at most 9 people actually know the information you're revealing here.

I want it to work exactly like I described it -- each justice posts an individual opinion, the CJ posts a summary opinion, all discussion in public, and members of the court free to post anytime anywhere about legal matters.

Anytime I can be of service, my friend. I agree with your plan.

Poll for ratification now open:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94832