http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/DG5Judicial2.jpg

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/DG5_RM_warflag.jpg

Our Constitution can be found here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2026857&postcount=1)

The Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94623)

The Official Active Census for Term 1 is 58.
Quorum for ratifying an Amendment to the Constitution is 38 Yes votes.
________________________________

Term 1 Judicial Procedure ~
________________________________

1. The Judiciary is comprised of three members, the Chief Justice, the Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate.

2. All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and responsibilities.
A. Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and any lower laws.
B. Do not have Deputies, but may appoint Pro-Tem officials (Pro-Tem CJ, Pro-Tem PD, and Pro-Tem JA) if they are unable to fulfill their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for, but are a temporary position, and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official. The pro-tem status may be given for individual assigments or for the entirety of the official (this must be declared).
C. Participate in Judicial Review to determine the leagality of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
D. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing Constitutional Articles and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
E. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to examine whether or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
F. Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

3. The Chief Justice ~
A. Perform as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge Advocate in the absense of either official. This duty shall only apply if said officials have not appointed a Pro-Tem official.
B. Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial thread at the begining of the Term.
C. Is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.
D. Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on topic and procedurally accurate.

4. The Public Defender ~
A. Is tasked with ensuring all Citizen's Complaint investigations are performed correctly, with deference to the presumed innocense of the accused.
B. Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought against them and what rules were purportedly broken so the accused can mount an effective defense.
C. Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

5. The Judge Advocate ~
A. Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations and trial.
B. Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
C. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence) for any anonimous accusers.

6. All Judicial Review and Investigations will be held publicly. Communication between the Justices will be posted in the Judicial thread or the Investigation threads.

7. Judicial Review ~
A. A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary.
B. Review of proposed legislation.
1. Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
2. The request is posted in the appropriate list in post #3 of this thread.
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
4. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the house with detail of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
5. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.
C. Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.
1. Any member of the house may request a Judicial Review for interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. The request must be formatted in a YES or NO question format. If it is not, the Judiciary may reformat the request in order to achieve this goal. The existing Law must also be clearly stated in the request.
2. The request is posted in the appropriate list in post #3 of this thread.
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
4. The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial Log for reference.
D. Dismissal of Investigations deemed as having "No Merit".
1. 3 of 3 Justices must agree that the accusation shows "No Merit".
2. Specific reasoning must be given by each Justice for a judgement of "No Merit".

8. Citizen's Complaint ~
A. If any citizen believes that someone has violated an Article of the Constitution or any other lower form of law, they can report this suspected violation for investigation and trial.
1. The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
2. The allegation can be made privately to the Chief Justice via Private Message.
B. Allegations of misconduct must include:
1. Name of the defendant.
2. The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
3. When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.
C. The Citizen's Complaint is posted in the appropriate list in post #3 of this thread.
D. The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused of the charge(s).
E. A brief Judicial Review of the charge(s) is done (see 7.D above) to determine if the charges have "No Merit".
F. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
1. The first two replies to this thread are reserved for the Public Defender and the accused to respond publicly to the charge(s) (Defense). Either may post first, and both may say what they wish (within forum rules). If their replies/responses have not been posted within 24 hours of the thread's posting, they lose these reserved spots and anyone can post.
G. Citizens can post in this thread their opinions on the charge(s), whether they think the accused is guilty of the infraction or not, and if the case should go to Trial.
H. If the accused pleads guilty, the Trial is skipped and the case moves to the Sentencing Process. The Chief Justice may close the Investigation thread early if this occurs.
I. When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.
1. If the results of the Investigation (defined as input in the Investigation thread) thread are overwhelmingly in favor of the Defendant, the Judge Advocate will submit the case for abrief Judicial Review to determine if the case has "No Merit". If the case is then viewed as having "No Merit" the case is closed.
2. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent, and Abstain and will remain open for 72 hours.
3. In the event the Trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine if the defendant is innocent or guilty by posting independant and clear Opinions at the end of the Trial poll.
J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1 The Sentencing poll will remain open for 72 hours, and have the following Options:
a. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
b. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
c. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
d. Warning
e. No Punishment
f. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the current offense, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
3. In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independant and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.
4. The guilty party must abide by the results of the Sentencing poll.

9. The Judicial Log may be referenced for further interpretation or clarification, but may not be used for criteria for review of proposed legislation.

10. For any Judicial Review ruling or issue involved with a Citizen Complaint, each Justices must post independantly their opinion on the matter. In essance, they must answer the question asked by the Judicial Review in a Yes or No fashion (have "Merit" or "No Merit" also applies here). Specifically, there will be no "fence-riding". Each Justice will come down on one side of the issue or the other, clearly.

EDIT: Changed the word Trial to Sentencing in 8.J.3.

Constitutional Amendments and other Judicial Reviews.
______________________________________________

DG5JR1
complete ~ Article D and the Chain of Command
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR2
complete ~ Proposed Ammendment to Article H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR3
complete ~ Proposed Amendment to Article O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR4
complete ~ Proposed Amendment to Article E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR5
closed ~ Candidates winning two elections simultaneously
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR6
complete ~ Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Article I of the Constitution
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR7
complete ~ Existance of Governors and Provinces.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR8
complete ~ Article M and it's meaning in regards to stopping play.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR9
complete ~ Tie breaking votes by Leaders
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR10
complete ~ Proposed Amendment to the Code of Laws. This is the first Law to be entered into the Code of Laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR11
complete ~ Proposed Amendment to Article G of the Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR12
complete ~ Non-executive Offices and binding Instructions for the TCIT.

Citizen Complaints.

Do you have any openings for Ambulance Chasers... ahem... Defenders of Civil Rights?

Congrats on yet another term as CJ. :goodjob:

Congrats Cyc, I'm glad one of our most experienced players holds this position at the beginning of this game.

I must say... that's the prettiest Judiciary thread ever.

Actually, the PD is "KCCrusader", not KKCrusader.

And here I was thinking KFCrusader. :p

Congrats Cyc. You should keep aspirin near your computer.

:D Thank you everyone (except CT, leave it to a Demogame Mod to insult someone's creative work) for the kind words. Sorry KCCrusader, the typo has been corrected. Thanks for pointing that out Comnenus.

Zarn, I have plenty of aspirins. And as you can see by the Judicial Procedures above, I have plenty of pacifiers for those of us who wish to be childish this Term by posting a gazillion legal actions.

:confused: That was a compliment...

Congrats, Cyc. I'm glad this position was won by a highly competent CJ, and I'm sure this term will be quite productive. Hopefully this isn't the only productive term in the judiciary, like last DG. ;)

Request for Judicial review

Let's get started, shall we? In the Presidential thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=95537), President DaveShack has appointed Chieftess as Vice President of Japanatica. While I have no problem with this appointment, I have concerns that the precedent of past DemoGames will dictate that the Vice President position will be allowed to supercede Constitutionally recognized leaders in an implied Chain of Command for gameplay.

Therefore, in reference to Article D of our Constitution:

With no laws in place to state the contrary, can an implied Chain of Command be granted by Article D, or is the President free to pass the game on to whomever he wishes?

Here is the article in question:

Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread. The President
shall be tasked with control of worker actions.
1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, worker allocation, as well
as the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Minister of Science shall be responsible for all tech
acquisition, as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
keeping of the peace and the construction of wonders.

Thank you to the Judiciary for your time, and congratulations to you all on your election to the bench.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
Minister of Trade

May it please the Court, I am petitioning for Judicial Review of the following situation which has arisen. Is it constitutional for a citizen to hold two offices simultaneously, yes or no? The offices in question are Vice-President and Deputy Culture Minister. Article H states:

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial
Governor) simultaneously.

While neither the Deputy position nor the Vice-President are specifically named, it might be considered to be implied, and should the Culture Minister be unable to carry out their duties, the Deputy may then be required to fill that position.

Therefore, I feel that a Judicial Review is in order so that we may proceed in a forthright manner.

Respectfully,

Comnenus, citizen

Request for Judicial review

Let's get started, shall we? In the Presidential thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=95537), President DaveShack has appointed Chieftess as Vice President of Japanatica. While I have no problem with this appointment, I have concerns that the precedent of past DemoGames will dictate that the Vice President position will be allowed to supercede Constitutionally recognized leaders in an implied Chain of Command for gameplay.




I agree with Donovan Zoi about this. There should be some democratic process for the selection of the VP, since the holder of said position could, given the right turn of events, become our leader. While I have no problem with Chieftess as our VP, this precedent of an appointed VP being higher up in the chain-of-command than an elected official must be looked in to.

Solutions can range from having the Pres candidates selcet a running mate for the elections, having a seperate election for the VP, or setting down the rule of law, that the runner-up of the Pres election shall become the VP.
(Somebody in the Judicial Office READ THIS!!)








I am asking that the Judicial Department give its opinion on the constitutionality of a citizen holding two offices simultaneously. The offices in question are Vice-President and Deputy Culture Minister. Article H states:

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial
Governor) simultaneously.

While a deputy position is not specifically named, it might be considered to be implied, and should the Culture Minister be unable to carry out their duties, the deputy may then be required to fill that position.

If it please the court, would you clarify the constitutionality of holding these two positions simultaneously?

Respectfully,

Comnenus, citizen



Again, this is an issue. I have to agree with Comnenus that one person should not be able to occupy two posts in the government. While I have no problem with current selection of VP and Deputy CM, this is a flaw in the game that should be fixed. Multiple nominations are ok by me, but multiple offices, in particular such high ones, should be limited to one per person.

Another solution could be that, in the case that the deputy becomes the Minister, he/she/it can hold only one top level position.



my 2 cents.

again, i have no problem with the apointment of the VP, but this should be fixed.

If it please the court, a discussion has begun for an Amendment to Article H. of the Constitution. I hereby request Judicial Review and input of the proposed Amendment.

Proposed Amendment to Article H (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95241)

Respectfully,

Comnenus, citizen

I was under the impression that the VP was to be the runner-up in the presidential elections?

I was under the impression that the VP was to be the runner-up in the presidential elections?

While there may be something lost in the vast mountains of discussion threads, there is nothing on this matter written directly in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, I can't find the VP slot even mentioned by name. Naturally, mine is not a legal opinion.

"Hmmm, .....let see here..." Cyc wanders off to his virtual Law Library and scans part of the entire wall of books.

Point of clarification:

Is a Judicial Review needed before sending a Proposed Article to a poll? In particular, I am referring to Articles E and O.

Point of clarification:

Is a Judicial Review needed before sending a Proposed Article to a poll? In particular, I am referring to Articles E and O.

Please see above Judicial Procedures. :)

7. Judicial Review ~
A. A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary.
B. Review of proposed legislation.
1. Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
2. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
3. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the house with detail of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
4. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.

Please see above Judicial Procedures. :)

7. Judicial Review ~
A. A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary.
B. Review of proposed legislation.
1. Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
2. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
3. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the house with detail of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
4. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.

I had read all of that, but I was still confused. Prior to there being a Judiciary, no review was necessary, for obvious reasons. Now that there is a Judiciary I know that Laws and Amendments need JR, but am still uncertain about proposed new Articles. These proposed Amendments are about ready to go to the voters, and I want to make certain I don't break any rules this time.

Thanks

Oh, sorry, Comnenus. The Judiciary will post all Legislative polls for the House after Judicial Review has determined that the content of the Legislation does conflict with existing law. What this means is that by any citizen requesting the Judiciary to conduct a JR on their Proposed Poll, they are releasing control of it to our Bench. The Judiciary will conduct a JR on the Proposed Poll and then post that poll for the citizens to vote on. This puts all Legislative (Constitutional Amendments or any form of lower Law) in protective custody, so to speak. This also means that citizens will not be allowed to post illegal or unconventional Legislative polls.

This Court will review your submitted Proposed Poll and if found not to contain any conflicts with existing Law, post the poll for you. I hope I have clarified this matter for you.

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

That is very clear. Thank you. I will take the needed actions.

Respectfully,

Comnenus, citizen

In the matter of Article O, a proposed Article of the Japanatica Constitution, if it please the Court, I would petition for Judicial Review of the proposed Article, such that it may be presented to the people for their approval.

Proposed Article O (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95309)

Comnenus, citizen

In the matter of Article E, a proposed Article of the Japanatica Constitution, if it please the Court, I would petition for Judicial Review of the proposed Article, such that it may be presented to the people for their approval.

Proposed Article E (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95303)

Respectfully,

Comnenus, citizen

Sorry for the delay, but at this point I would not only like to welcome Public Defender KCCrusader and Judge Advocate Immortal to the Judicial Bench, but grant them authority to post their Judicial opinions on any Judicial Review pending with this Court. I draw you attention to post #3 - Constitutional Amendments and other Judicial Reviews. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2050914&postcount=3)

Our game has not yet started in the conventional sense, but the citizenry feels otherwise. Please take your time in considering these issues and if you have any questions concerning procedure for posting, just ask. You can PM me for procedural instruction, but as all Reviews and Investigations are held publicly, please refrain from including any content matter in thos PMs.

Again, welcome to the Bench and GAME ON!

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

In regards to the below request for Judicial Review,

DG5JR1
Donovan Zoi has requested a Judicial review concerning the appointment/ election of the Vice President and it's effect on the Chain of Command in regards to Article D. In lieu of any legislation concerning the COC, he requests a ruling on the passing of gameplay.

Therefore, in reference to Article D of our Constitution:

With no laws in place to state the contrary, can an implied Chain of Command be granted by Article D, or is the President free to pass the game on to whomever he wishes?

I have posted Article D below:

Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread. The President
shall be tasked with control of worker actions.
1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, worker allocation,
as well as the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Minister of Science shall be responsible for all tech
acquisition, as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
keeping of the peace and the construction of wonders.


In the begining narrative is the sentance, "It is headed by the President who shall be the primary Designated Player." The Term primary Designated Player indicates that there is more than one Designated Player allowed. It does not stated how a secondary DP is authorized, but as our President is our Supreme Leader and in primary control of the DP position, it would seem the President's judgement on this matter would suffice. Before posting my Opinion I await the Opinion of the other Justices and the public, if they are so inclined, please post below.

Ahoy all. I hope for a successful first term on this court! Please excuse my absence as I have been in the middle of a wheat field in kansas for the weekend :-) With no further ado, and with my name corrected I'll being reviewing.

DG5JR1 Submitted by: Donovan Zoi
Regarding Presidential Succession

Under Review: With no laws in place to state the contrary, can an implied Chain of Command be granted by Article D, or is the President free to pass the game on to whomever he wishes?

This is one problem we will face with an incomplete Constitution. Article G would clear this up quickly in favor of a "Yes." Of course without this article ratified, we must work with the remaining constitution to form an answer.

Upon review of Article D, I do not recognize an "implied" chain of command in the document in its current state. The Ministries are organized using numbers, but no where does this article, or any other article or amendment, state, imply or decree that the numbered positions shall be the order of presidential succession. Since I can find no words or even implications that the President is forced to pass the game on to a certain individual, and regarding the fact that the President is delegated to run the game in a way he sees fit, I am obligated to rule in favor of the President.

Opinion On DG5JR1:The President may appoint any citizen to play the game turns in his/her absence.

If any changes in format or presentation are needed, post them here or PM me and I'll fix as soon as possible.

Also, I believe Comnenus has also asked for a review of Chieftess Accepting two positions of leadership as stated in post 14 of the Judicial Thread.

DG5JR2
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review of Proposed Ammendment to Article H of the Constitution. To abide by his request, this Court will oversee the writing of this proposed amendment and upon completion, conduct the JR to determine if any conflicts with existing Law exist. If no conflicts exist, this Court will post the Legislative poll for the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Article H (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95241)

After reading the above proposed legislation, I ask that the Justices please post a review of the document stating whether or not they believe it conflicts with any existing law.

DG5JR3
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning the legality of a Proposed Legislative Poll. The proposed poll is for an Amendment to Article O of the Constitution.

Proposed Poll for Constitutional Amendment to Article O (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95309)


After reading the proposed legislation above, I ask that the Justices please post a Review of the document stating whether or not they believe it conflicts with existing Law.

DG5JR4
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning the legality of a Proposed Legislative Poll. The proposed poll is for an Amendment to Article E of the Constitution.

Proposed Poll for an Amendemnet to Article E (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95303)

After reading the proposed legislation above, I ask the Justices to please post a Review of the document stating whether or not they believe it conflicts with existing Law.

DG5JR2 Requested by: Comnenus
Regarding Proposed Amendment to Article H

Proposed Legislation:
Article H.
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership in the
Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches simultaneously,
nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
commencement of the general election.

Assumed:This text will replace all text in Article H of the constitution.

Upon review of our current law, I can find no discrepancies, redundancies or contradictions between the proposed law and the existing law.

Opinion on DG5JR2: Proposed legislation is within the bounds of the law and should move to the ratification process.

DG5JR5
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning the legality of a Citizen holding two Offices at once by virtue of winning two elections simultaneously. The question wraps around the issue of a Candidate running for more than one Office at a time. If a Candidate wins two elections simultaneously, is this a violation of Article H (posted below).


Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial
Governor) simultaneously.

As an Amendment to Article H has a Judicial Review pending, prior to being polled, the Majority Opinion for this Judicial Review may be delayed.

I ask the Justices to please consider the matter above in relation to Article H. Because the game has just started the timing of this ruling may based on the pending proposed legislation, as stated above. Please hold off on Reviewing this matter until further notice.

DG5JR3 Requested by: Comnenus
Regarding Proposed Amendment to Article O

I have decided to delay ruling on this amendment until an Article E has been ratified. If I ruled now, the "...as stated in Article E." glares at me since there is not yet an Article E in out Constitution.

I urge the other justices to take the same action or propose another action.

Honorable Chief Justice Cyc and Members of the Court,

Since I am also active in drafting amendments of some of the items standing for Judicial Review, I would like to request clarification on two things regarding the JR process as it pertains to the drafting of new laws. My request is in no way meant to undermine the jurisdiction of this court, nor is it to question the guidelines set by our Chief Justice. If anything, my intent is help simplify the process for the members of the Court, if my help is indeed welcome. :)

First of all, would the court prefer that drafters of proposed polls include in their JR request the actual text of the final item being proposed? This would keep the court from having to sift through an entire thread for the actual document in question, as there are typically several incarnations of a bill before the final draft.

And secondly, to save the valuable time of our judges, would the court prefer that JR requests on said laws be held until the final draft is ready for submission? And if so, should the 24 hour period of final discussion that was practiced duning our initial ratification process continue to be granted prior to an amendment's submission to the court? This would ensure that the court does not mistakenly, yet through no fault of its own, submit a work-in-progress to the House. It would also give the citizens 24 hours of final discussion that they enjoyed during the ratification of most of our Constitution.

Please let me know if these suggestions will make things easier. If so, I will try my best to ensure their use during all amendment discussions in which I take part.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
Minister of Trade
House Member

7. Judicial Review ~
A. A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary.
B. Review of proposed legislation.
1. Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
2. The request is posted in the appropriate list in post #3 of this thread.
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
4. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the house with detail of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
5. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.

DG5JR4 Requested by: Comnenus
Regarding Proposed Article E

Proposed Legislation:
Article E. Legislative Branch

The Legislative Branch will be formed of one House of the People and an Advisory
Council.

1.The House of the People will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws and Amendments to the Constitution.
a.The House will present all proposed Articles, Amendments
and Laws to the Judicial Branch for review.
2.The Advisory Council will be formed of the Provincial Governors. They will advise the citizens of the state of their individual provinces, any concerns there may be for said provinces, and enumerate any goals they envision for their provinces.
a.Each Governor shall determine any policies and procedures
needed to carry out their duties.
b.Governors are responsible for the care, management,
use of the cities, and use of lands of a province through the
setting of build queues, allocation of laborers on tiles,
population rushes and drafting of citizen soldiers.
Upon review of the constitution, this proposed article does not conflict with any existing articles or pieces of law.

Opinion on DG5JR4: Proposed legislation is within the bounds of the law and should move to the ratification process.

The suggestions submitted by Donovan Zoi would be helpful in clarifying things. Although I moved ahead to the reviews of the proposed laws in their current forms, I wasn't sure if there is a required waiting time for citizens to express concerns with the documents before they are submitted.

The first suggestion would help greatly.
The second suggestions is simply a matter of what is decided. In articles E and amendment to article O the discussion had been virtually wrapped up, althougha formal time limit to express opinions was not set up.

The amendment to article G is still under discussion.

I think a minimum amount of time should be required to prevent an unfinished document from becoming submitted.

Honorable Chief Justice Cyc and Members of the Court,

First of all, would the court prefer that drafters of proposed polls include in their JR request the actual text of the final item being proposed? This would keep the court from having to sift through an entire thread for the actual document in question, as there are typically several incarnations of a bill before the final draft.

Personally, as I have posted all of the requests thus far, in both the listings in post #3 and here in the normal posts of the Judicial Thread, I have found it easier if the person submitting the request simply posts a link to the proposed legislation (post number represented by text). When I have to transfer the text, it usually involves editing line lengths or reformatting of some sort. Believe me, there is a LOT of cutting and pasting in this position as CJ. :) I would much rather copy the shortcut to the link, than all the other work involved with perfect text. By the way, if anyone should spot an error withany of the links or text, please pull my nose away from the grindstone so I can fix it. :)

And secondly, to save the valuable time of our judges, would the court prefer that JR requests on said laws be held until the final draft is ready for submission? And if so, should the 24 hour period of final discussion that was practiced duning our initial ratification process continue to be granted prior to an amendment's submission to the court? This would ensure that the court does not mistakenly, yet through no fault of its own, submit a work-in-progress to the House. It would also give the citizens 24 hours of final discussion that they enjoyed during the ratification of most of our Constitution.

In the text that you quoted of the Judicial Procedure (post #2 of this thread), 7.B.1, Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws., it states that any citizen may request a JR for their proposed legislation (which by then, should be in the form of a Proposed Poll). A Proposed Poll should only be drawn up at the conclusion of discussion on the matter, as a form to present to the Judiciary. I have outlined these procedures for Comnenus in Post #23 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2054875&postcount=23). As there can be a time lag of undetermined length between the time a Proposed Poll (Legislation) is submitted to the Court and the time a JR is completed, this Court see no problem with requesting a JR for said document immediately after posting the Proposed Poll at the bottom of the discussion thread. If the 24 hour period expires before the JR is completed, the Poll may or may not be posted in the Poll sub-forum depending on the author. If the JR approves the Proposed Poll, then everything is fine and we merely have to wait for the results of the poll. If the Proposed Poll does not pass Judicial Review, then if the Poll was posted, it will need to be closed. If the Poll was not posted, then it needs to be reworked and resubmitted.This is a Judgemnet call by the author of the Proposed Poll. So in answer to your multi-pronged question, 1. Yes, before requesting a JR on a Proposed Poll, the Proposed Poll must be posted at the bottom of the discussion thread, and 2. The 24 hour period starts as soon as the Proposed Poll is posted at the bottom of the discussion thread. Keep in mind if any changes are made to the Proposed Poll, the 24 hour period starts again.

DG5JR1

Considered:

Therefore, in reference to Article D of our Constitution:

With no laws in place to state the contrary, can an implied Chain of Command be granted by Article D, or is the President free to pass the game on to whomever he wishes?

When I opened discussion on this JR, I stated that I would wait on the other Justices before posting. But Public Defender KCCrusader is rendered the only Opinion thus far, Judge Advocate Immortal must be delayed. Therefore I will now post my Opinion.

As also stated in the discussion opening "In the begining narrative is the sentance, "It is headed by the President who shall be the primary Designated Player." The Term primary Designated Player indicates that there is more than one Designated Player allowed. It does not stated how a secondary DP is authorized, but as our President is our Supreme Leader and in primary control of the DP position, it would seem the President's judgement on this matter would suffice." I still agree with this. A Chain of Command may be implied in Article D, but not granted. Therefore no restrictions covering who the President choses to replace him are Legislated here. What is stated is that the President is the primary controller of the Designated Play position. This not only means that the President may chose who replaces him as a temporary DP, it also means that no one, and I repeat for effect, no one may play the save just because the President didn't show up at the chat.

DG5JR1 Chief Justice Opinion ~ No Chain of Command is granted through Article D and the President has the authority to assign DP duties to whomever he wishes.

DG5JR1
Requested By donovan Zoi

Review: With no laws in place to state the contrary, can an implied Chain of Command be granted by Article D, or is the President free to pass the game on to whomever he wishes?

The implication in this article is that the President is a Primary Designated player, however this also implies there is a secondary player, a tertiary player, a quaternary player. However, there lacks any definition of CoC. Given the Presidents status as chief of the executive, it is my opinion that he be allowed to determine chain of command at his choice, and change it of his own freewill at any time.

Final Opinion There is no defined Chain Of Command, therefore it falls to the President to determine a Chain of Command should he see fit. If he does not, it is his decision who the Designated Player shall be in his absence.

Judge Advocate 08/02/04

DG5JR2:
Requested by: Commenus

Legislation Pending:

Article H.
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President,
Vice-President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor,
Deputy) simultaneously, nor shall have more than one accepted
nomination at the commencement of the general election.

Final Opinion: The article as is, is acceptable and can be submitted for citizen ratification.

DG5JR4
Requested by:Commenus

Legislation Pending:

][CODE]Article E. Legislative Branch

The Legislative Branch will be formed of one House of the People and an Advisory Council.
1.The House of the People will be formed of the entirety of the
citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws and
Amendments to the Constitution.
a.The House will present all proposed Articles, Amendments
and Laws to the Judicial Branch for review.
2.The Advisory Council will be formed of the Provincial Governors.
They will advise the citizens of the state of their individual
provinces, any concerns there may be for said provinces,
and enumerate any goals they envision for their provinces.
a.Each Governor shall determine any policies and
procedures needed to carry out their duties.
b.Governors are responsible for the care, management,
use of the cities, and use of lands of a province through
the setting of build queues, allocation of laborers on tiles,
population rushes and drafting of citizen soldiers.

Final Opinion: Is it my opinion that the legislation is constiutional, however I would like to clarify now that in my opinion governors are always at the whim of the executive ALL members of it, and lack any executive powers.

The Legislation is approved, ratification should move forward.

Judge Advocate 08/02/04

DG5JR3:
Requested By: Commenus:

Legislation Pending:

Article O
The area contained within the national boundaries of Japanatica
shall be divided into areas called provinces, each of which
is under the control of a Governor as stated in Article E. of the
Constitution. These boundries must be defined and approved by
the House well ahead of expansion, and may extend beyond the
cultural boundaries. City locations shall be determined by the
Will of the People.


Final Opinion: This legislation is approved, however I would once again like to reiterate that governors are to submit to all members of the executive at any time in regard to provinces.

Judge Advocate 08/02/04

DG5JR2

Comnenus has requested a JR on his Proposed Poll for an Amendment to Article H of the Constitution. This propsed poll has been changed many times, including a couple since the request was made, I believe. Therefore I would like to state at this time that the Proposed Legislation in question for this JR is post #42 of the discussion thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2055952&postcount=42) for this matter.

As Chief Justice, I find that this Legislation in no way conflicts with any existing Law.

DG5JR3

Comnenus has requested a JR on his Proposed Poll for an Amendment to Article O of the Constitution. Although I have not mentioned this before, the requests are being made for Legislation, not polls. In the future, I request that actual mock polls be posted at the bottom of the discussion thread. This will allow this Court to examine the wording of the poll and verify that what is posted as the actual poll in the poll sub-forum matches what is submitted to this Court as a request for Judicial Review.

In review of the Legislation submitted by Comnenus, post #19 of the discussion thread, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2054385&postcount=19) I, as Chief Justice, find that this Legislation in no way conflicts with existing Law.

In the future, I request that actual mock polls be posted at the bottom of the discussion thread. This will allow this Court to examine the wording of the poll and verify that what is posted as the actual poll in the poll sub-forum matches what is submitted to this Court as a request for Judicial Review.


I am not certain how that works. Do we just post a poll in the midst of the discussion thread or go to the poll section and post a poll, or what? :confused: Does the poll have any validity? Sorry, but you completely lost me here.

I'm sorry I guess I wasn't very clear here. Maybe I'm thinking everyone knows this already. :rolleyes: My mistake.

When you post a "Proposed Poll" at the bottom of your discussion thread, what you are posting is the "narrative" of the poll. This narrative would not only give the details of the poll (why the poll was created, list the options with a brief description of each to follow, how long the poll should run, etc.), but also have any information generally expected in an important poll. By this I mean a line that says "Dicussion can be found at this link (even though in your mock poll you would link to the page your in. Type type in the sentance. In the poll, you would link back to the thread.) and more...

What you have been requesting JRs on is only the legislation to be voted on. If we approve the Legislation and then you post a ridiculous, biased, or unverifiable poll, then we have wasted our time and can be consider liable for approving your "Proposed Poll". If you make your "Proposed Poll" look just like the narrative (Initial wording for the poll), then our JR can approve exactly what you will post as a poll.

Does this help?
EDIT: Post 5800

To help with the "Proposed Poll" problem, I'm going to post one below, using the wording that DaveShack used for one of his actual poll, prior to this game starting. Up to in the title box, I would put "Proposed Poll for an Amendment to Articles A through C and the Preamble of the Constitution. Then below in the narrative box, I would put the following:

Ratification Poll: Constitution preamble and Articles A thru C

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

This is the ratification poll for the preamble to the constitution, and articles A thru C. A majority of votes cast in the affirmative will signify these articles are ratified. Amendments to these articles may be proposed and passed using a majority until such time as the constitution in its entirety has been ratified, at which time the rules regarding ratification of amendments (if any) take effect.

Please vote yes to ratify (accept) these articles as written, no to reject them, or abstain if you wish to record your indifference to this decision. A majority is defined as (YES > NO) AND (YES >= NO + ABSTAIN). For example, yes=15, no=14, abstain=1 -> the articles are ratified. yes=15, no=15 -> ratification fails.

This poll will remain open for 7 days, and the option to see all the votes is enabled to ensure that we can tell later whether people voting in the poll were actually intending to become citizens. If there is significant disagreement with the poll being open, I will ask the moderators to delete it and I'll repost it as closed.

The text to be ratified:


We, the people of Fanatica, in order to create an atmosphere of
friendship and cooperation, establish this Constitution of our
beloved country. We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must
have an equal voice in the government and ruling of our country,
that government itself is a construct of and servant to the people,
that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to
facilitate the active participation of the people and to make
possible the dreams and desires of the citizens.

Article A. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to
representation, the right to seek to redress grievances
and the right to vote.

Article B. Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the
Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower
forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be
valid that contradicts these Articles excepting an
amendment or lower form of law specifically tasked
to do so.

Article C. The government will consist of the Executive Branch,
Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.


And that would be all that was needed on the page. In this example, the last part of the narrative about the poll being disagreed with would not be needed. The one thing he did forget was a link back to the discussion thread. I will also go back to your discussion thread and post another "Proposed Poll" so you can see what I mean.

I guess my misunderstanding is based on the words "mock poll". I don't see a poll, unless by that you mean vote yea or nay by stating so in the thread rather than in an actual poll.

I would like to take a moment to thank the Judiciary for their prompt consideration of the legal actions which have been initiated so far, and the professional way in which business has been conducted! Keep up the good work! :goodjob: [dance]

I would like to take a moment to thank the Judiciary for their prompt consideration of the legal actions which have been initiated so far, and the professional way in which business has been conducted! Keep up the good work! :goodjob: [dance]

I would like to second that, whole-heartedly! :goodjob:

I guess my misunderstanding is based on the words "mock poll". I don't see a poll, unless by that you mean vote yea or nay by stating so in the thread rather than in an actual poll.

OK, when I say "Mock Poll", I don't really mean you would "post a poll" at the bottom of your discussion thread. What you would post would just be a normal post that has the narrative of the actual poll you would post in the poll sub-forum. The first post in any poll is the narrative of that poll. In order to post any poll, you need to fill in the narrative portion of the poll. The narrative portion of the poll (the first post following the options to vote on), should have all the information needed to educate the reader/voter enough to make a resonably educated vote. That is why a link to the discussion thread needs to go in every poll (in case the reader/voter wants to check out the discussion).

So when I say "post a proposed poll in your discussion thread" I don't mean post a poll, I mean post the narrative for the poll that will included all the info I want to see. Are we on the same page here? You don't have people vote in a "proposed poll" in any way. You just post the information for the Judiciary to look at.

Ok. that is pretty much what I've been doing, although I can't guarentee I did it in every one of them. I will be more diligent in the future.

DG5JR3 Requested by: Comnenus
Regarding Proposed Amendment to Article O

Assumed:This text will replace all text in Article O of the constitution.

Although there is not currently an Article E, if the current unratified Article E was in place there would be no problem with this law. Since Article E has moved on to the ratification process, I have decided not to hold my opinion on this legislation.

Upon review of our current law, I can find no discrepancies, redundancies or contradictions between the proposed law and the existing law.

Opinion on DG5JR3: Proposed legislation is within the bounds of the law and should move to the ratification process.

Esteemed member KCCrusader:

My reason for not waiting as you did for the Article was that I approved of article E first, then went back to JR3 as to ensure one was approved after the other. Thus, both can be voted upon at the same time.

This Court has post Opinions on the first three Judicial Reviews. I shall post the Majority Opinion for these JRs in the Judicial Log probably sometime tonight. I will also be posting the Chief Justice's Opinion on DG5JR4, which will conclude review of that issue, and have its Majority Opinion posted in the Judicial Log.

I would like to thank the Justices for their work and the citizens for their involvement.

DG5JR4

Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review for his Proposed Poll concerning Article E of the Constitution.

In review of the legislation submitted by Comnenus, post #20 of the discussion thread, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2052062&postcount=20) I as Chief Justice, find that this legislation in no way conflicts with existing law.

Judge Advocate Immortal and Public Defender KCCrusader ~

An error has been found in our Judicial Review of DG5JR2. In the request for the JR, a link was provided that led to the discussion thread for this Amendment to Article H. The link should have been to the specific Proposed Legislation/Poll. If you read my Review of the JR, you'll find the correct link which leads to post #42 on the third page of that Discussion thread. Here's the proper link to post #42 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2055952&postcount=42). Please read the appropriate legislation for this JR and redo your Reviews.

I take full responsibility for this error. Please respond quickly. In the furture, when posting Judicial Reviews, please post a link to the exact post with the proposed legislation/poll. If both of you hadn't posted the text in your review, I wouldn't have found the problem as quickly. Now because a couple of requests have had unreliable links posted with them, I'll be checking more thouroughly. Thanks,

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

May it please the Court, Mr. Chief Justice, what is the standing of DG5JR2?

It has been approved by the Public Defender and the Judge Advocate, but in different forms.

I await the Court's decision.

May it please the Court, Mr. Chief Justice, what is the standing of DG5JR2?

It has been approved by the Public Defender and the Judge Advocate, but in different forms.

I await the Court's decision.

In the eyes of the Court, DG5JR2 is approved. The error mentioned above is purely semantics. Both versions say the same thing with different words. The problem is our words are required to match yours. Post #42 in the discussion thread is the version your request was to cover. So that is why I need the Justices to rewrite their Reviews.

Thank you for your speedy response to my inquiry, Mr. Chief Justice.

May you always live under the blessings of the Great Ameterasu!

Our common ground is a shared acknowledgement that social transformation requires openness, compassion, wisdom and a commitment to social action.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/dogezas1.gif

Honorable Judiciary,

I humbly submit for Judicial Review an amendment to Article I of our Constitution. A mock poll has been fashioned and is waiting for your perusal in Post #20 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2064473&postcount=20) of the Article I Amendment thread.

Since is this my first time trying out the new system, please let me know if this has been submitted properly.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
Trade Minister
House Member

May it please the Court, it would seem that no Article of the Constitution has been ratified which allows for Provinces or Governors. Since no such Article exists, I submit that Provinces and Governors do not exist within the nation of Japanatica, nor its government. Therefore I ask for a Judicial Review of the following two questions:

1. Can Provinces be formed in the nation's territory?

2. Can citizens elected to the Provincial Governor's position make any decisions?

As you can see in the Constitution of Japanatica, no Article sets forth Provinces or Governors:


We, the people of Fanatica, in order to create an atmosphere of
friendship, cooperation, and pride, establish this Constitution of our
beloved country. We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must
have an equal voice in the government and ruling of our country,
that government itself is a construct of and servant to the people,
that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to
facilitate the active participation of the people and to make
possible the dreams and desires of the citizens.

Article A. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to
representation, the right to seek to redress grievances
and the right to vote.

Article B. Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the
Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower
forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be
valid that contradicts these Articles. The Constitution
amendments can be added/modified/removed when the
need arises.

Article C. The government will consist of the Executive Branch,
Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.

Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread. The President
shall be tasked with control of worker actions.
1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, worker allocation, as well
as the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Minister of Science shall be responsible for all tech
acquisition, as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
keeping of the peace and the construction of wonders.

Article F. The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public
Defender and a 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.

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial
Governor) simultaneously.

Article I. Census, and Amending the Constitution

1. The census shall be defined as the average number
of votes cast, dropping fractions, in each of the
contested elections in the most recent general
election.
2. Ratification of Amendments to the Constitution
shall require each of the following:
a. A poll which is open for at least 96 hours, which
states the text of the proposed new section(s),
the text of the section(s) being replaced, and
posing the question in the form of yes / no /
abstain.
b. A majority of yes votes.
c. A number of yes votes greater than or equal to
2/3 the census current at the start of voting on
the amendment, dropping any fraction therein.
d. The Amendment poll must first be posted as a
"proposed poll" in the discussion thread created
for the Amendment. The proposed poll must exist
in the discussion thread for 24 hours prior to the
Amendment poll being created. This gives adequate
time for review and changes.

Article J. Elected officials must plan and act according to the will
of the people. The will of the people will be determined
through discussion and polls, formal or informal. If pertinent
discussion is done outside the scope of the DG forums, then it must
be documented in the Turnchat Instruction Thread 6 hours
prior to the commencement of the turnchat by the appropriate
leader.

Article K. All irreversible game actions must progress during a
public turnchat, while reversible game actions(ie build
queues) that adhere to legal instruction can be prepared
offline.

Article L. The constitution, laws and standards of Fanatika can never
be contrary to the rules and regulations of the
Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto any such
constitutional amendments, laws or standards.

Article M. Commission of any game action by any person other than
the Designated Player while carrying out their duties
that is not instantly reversible without reloading the
save is strictly forbidden.
1. Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation
of Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance
or war to exit the bargain screen. This may be done
but the game must be immediately closed without
saving.

Article N: Rights reserved to the people
As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions not forbidden
by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to be within the
right of every citizen. Actions prescribed by this Constitution may be
substituted by other similar actions, provided such substitution lies
within the spirit of these rules.

Thank you for your consideration of these matters. There has been no discussion on this issue that I am aware of.

DG5JR2 Submitted by Comnenus
Regarding Constitutional Amendment to Article H

I find this amendment does not interfere with the current law and should move to the ratification process.

(again heh)

Honorable Judiciary,

I humbly submit for Judicial Review an amendment to Article I of our Constitution. A mock poll has been fashioned and is waiting for your perusal in Post #20 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2064473&postcount=20) of the Article I Amendment thread.

Since is this my first time trying out the new system, please let me know if this has been submitted properly.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
Trade Minister
House Member

Honorable Donovan Zoi,
Excellent work on your Proposed Poll. A fine example for great Legislation. I have posted your request as DG5JR6 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2050914&postcount=3) and will proceed with the review.

Comnenus, your request for a Judicial Review concerning our Legislative Branch has been recorded as DG5JR7 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2050914&postcount=3), and we will proceed with the Review.

DG5JR6 Requested by: Donovan Zoi
Regarding Proposed Amendment to Article I

Proposed Legislation:

Article I - Amended Changes in boldface
Article I. Census, and Amending the Constitution

1. The census shall be defined as the average number
of votes cast, dropping fractions, in each of the
contested elections in the most recent general
election.
2. Ratification of Amendments to the Constitution
shall require each of the following:
a. A poll which is open for at least 96 hours, which
states the text of the proposed new section(s),
the text of the section(s) being replaced, and
posing the question in the form of yes / no /
abstain.
b. A 67% majority of Yes votes over No votes, Abstain
notwithstanding.
c. A total number of votes greater than or equal to
2/3 the census current at the start of voting on
the amendment, dropping any fraction therein.
d. The Amendment poll must first be posted as a
"proposed poll" in the discussion thread created
for the Amendment. The proposed poll must exist
in the discussion thread for 24 hours prior to the
Amendment poll being created. This gives adequate
time for review and changes.

Assumed:This text will replace all text in Article I of the constitution.

This Article is acceptable and does not conflict with any laws. The draft poll is also acceptable.

Opinion on DG5JR6: Proposed legislation is within the bounds of the law and should move to the ratification process.

DG5JR6

Donovan Zoi has requested a Judicial Review for his Proposed Poll concerning an Amendment to Article I of the Constitution. A copy of the changes to Article I of the Constitution can be found in the post above or at this link. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2065630&postcount=69)

In reviewing this Proposed Poll, I as Chief Justice, find that it in no way conflicts with existing law. The Legislation passes review.

Thank you, Justices Cyc and KCCrusader, for your prompt response to my request. I shall put this amendment before the House tonight.

DG5JR7

Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning Provinces and Governors in regards to their very existance due to the lack of Legislation in the Constitution. His claim is that due to this lack of Legislation, Provinces and Governors can not exist in the great nation of Japanatica. That said, he ask 2 questions of this Court ~

1. Can Provinces be formed in the nation's territory?

2. Can citizens elected to the Provincial Governor's position make any decisions?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I, as Chief Justice consider the answer to both questions as yes. My reasoning is stated below.

Article C of the Constitution states:
The government will consist of the Executive Branch,
Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.

I interpret this to mean that the customary branches of the government (listed in Article C) will each participate equally in the mechanics of our government. Each branch has its own responsibilities to the people of Japanatica and must carry them out as prescribed by law. Common knowledge of a government of this structure will provide the components of each branch. For the purposes of this review, it is common knowledge that Governors are part of the Legislative Branch. Is this enough to authorize the standard definition of a Governor and the duties associated with that title? Maybe not, let's dig further into the Constitution.

Article H states:
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial
Governor) simultaneously.

Here we find the Constitution not only associates Governors with Provinces, but states that they are in deed "positions of leadership". Just as the President and Department Leaders, defined elsewhere in the Constitution, are in "positions of leadership", so are Provincial Governors, or put another way... Governors of a Province. Here we see that the term Province used in the Constitution. Although, just like Governors, Provinces are not defined to the extent of other "positions of leadership", both are now equally spoken of in common language with the rest. The term Provincial Governor also indicates to me that there may be more than one Province, each with its own Governor. Is this enough Constitutional authorization for me? Let's dig further.

Article N states:
Rights reserved to the people
As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions not forbidden
by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to be within the
right of every citizen. Actions prescribed by this Constitution may be
substituted by other similar actions, provided such substitution lies
within the spirit of these rules.

This Article seals the deal for me, as for one, any citizen may wish to become part of the Legislative Branch, or if that is not suitable for some of you, a Provincial Governor (as stated in the Constitution). There is no law stating that they can not. There is reference to the position in the Constitution. There is an extreme need for a grass roots Leader at the Provincial level. And there is a need for a Leader of this nature to forward the needs of these provinces to the President in the Instruction thread. When you combine all of these points, and compare them with Article N, it appears to me that they all fall within the spirit of the Constitution.

Taking in the information I have gleaned from the above Articles of the Constitution, I am inclined to say, yes. Provincial Governors and the Provinces they govern are authorized by the Constitution. In this regard they can make decisions about the Provinces they are elected to control.

As both of my Associates have posted their Opinions and I have received no input from the Public, I'm converting this into my final Opinion.

Provincial Governors and the Provinces they govern are authorized by the Constitution. In this regard Governors can make decisions about the Provinces they are elected to control.

My apologies for adding to the court's busy workload, but can you please review the following question regarding Article M:

Under Article M as written, is the Designated Player granted the unique authority to "reverse" irreversible actions while playing the save at turnchat?

In CivGeneral's Dealing with Demands from other nations (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95985) thread, discussion has been raised on what can be done to plan for and offset unplanned demands from rival nations. It was suggested by someone that the DP could view the demand, then stop the game and take his findings back to the forum. Our President responded that it is not within his right to do such a thing and based on precedent, he is correct.

However, is Article M written in such a way to allow him to do just that? Due to the parade of run-on clauses that Article M contains, it is hard for this legislator to tell.

My gratitude to the court for your valuable time.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
Trade Minister
House Member


Article M. Commission of any game action by any person other than
the Designated Player while carrying out their duties
that is not instantly reversible without reloading the
save is strictly forbidden.
1. Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation
of Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance
or war to exit the bargain screen. This may be done
but the game must be immediately closed without
saving.

Donovan Zoi has requested a Judicial Review pertaining to Article M of the Constitution, and it's meaning in regards to stopping play.

Under Article M as written, is the Designated Player granted the unique authority to "reverse" irreversible actions while playing the save at turnchat?

In CivGeneral's Dealing with demands from other nations (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95985) thread, discussion has been raised on what can be done to plan for and offset unplanned demands from rival nations. It was suggested by someone that the DP could view the demand, then stop the game and take his findings back to the forum. Our President responded that it is not within his right to do such a thing and based on precedent, he is correct.

However, is Article M written in such a way to allow him to do just that? Due to the parade of run-on clauses that Article M contains, it is hard for this legislator to tell.

Your request has been logged in post #3 of this thread as DG5JR8 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2050914&postcount=3) .

DG5JR8

Considering:
Under Article M as written, is the Designated Player granted the unique authority to "reverse" irreversible actions while playing the save at turnchat?

The quick answer is no, Article M does not grant this authority. Being present at the writing of this Law, I am privy to the intent of Article M. That intent originally was to replace the Demogame signature Law, DON'T PLAY THE SAVE!

During that period of time, it was found that the Foreign Affairs Minister needed to determine to results of renegotiating Peace Treaties with our AI counterparts, in order to present the masses and the Council with our best options. In order to do so, it was required for the FA Minister to except or deny offers to said counterparts in this renegotiation. The problem was that this was a non-reversible move, and the FA Minister would be breaking the number one rule just by completing his responsibilities to the people. This prompted the change from "Don't play the Save!" to Article M in its present form, with a blurb at the bottom that was written to specifically protect the FA Minister while performing the normal functions of his job. The main narrative of Article M is not talking to or about the President, but instead is addressing all citizens, telling them that this action is forbidden, and that by extension, all citizens may verify the FA Minister's work by performing the same task.

Now that you've read the long answer, no, Article M does not grant this authority.

Justices of the Court,

As a citizen, I'm concerned about my rights to comment on the items before the court, and to have my comments affect the viewpoints of those on the court.

Does this court plan to allow citizens to comment on Judicial actions, and will such comments be able to affect the decisions of the Justices. Thus far, I have seen minimal effort to garner such input. I'm disappointed that those who champion the rights of citizens would ignore nor actively seek their input.

-- Ravensfire

Justices of the Court,

As a citizen, I'm concerned about my rights to comment on the items before the court, and to have my comments affect the viewpoints of those on the court.

Does this court plan to allow citizens to comment on Judicial actions, and will such comments be able to affect the decisions of the Justices. Thus far, I have seen minimal effort to garner such input. I'm disappointed that those who champion the rights of citizens would ignore nor actively seek their input.

-- Ravensfire

Honorable Ravensfire, it pleases this Court to see you standing before us. Welcome.

In regards to your concerns about your rights to comment on items before the court, as Chief Justice, I can assure you that your comments are not only welcome here, but sorely needed.

I have made it perfectly clear that all Court proceeding will be held in public. This means that input from the public is also welcome. Thus far we have heard from Superpelon, eyrei, Comnenus, and DZ (hope I didn't miss anyone). Their comments varied as far as scope and if their post was in the form of a question, I tried to answer as soon as possible. If their post was in the form of a statement, I personally took it into consideration in my dealings with the items before the court. In fact, in my first Judicial Review, I stated that I would wait to post my Opinion until I heard from the public and my associate Justices. That was pretty clear language. I have been very busy dealing with the public in answering many questions about Judicial Procedure. So you see there has not only been written requests for public input, but a heavy volume of public contact by this Bench.

If the public, in their wisdom chooses not to comment on publically held proceedings, that is up to them. I took their silence as kind of an acknowledgement that things were on the up and up. There is also some humorous quip going around about how we live in a nation called Apathetica. I'm not real sure how that humor rumor got its start, ;) but that theory may have been taken into consideration also.

In a PM about Judicial Procedure I recieved from one of my Justices, a concern was brought up about posting a discussion for each Judicial Review. I replied that, in comparison with DG4, this Court's procedure for JRs and CCs had basically flipped. CCs would be moved to the Citizen's sub-form and the Polling sub-forum (as stated in post #2). JRs would be moved into the Judicial thread (which is apparent).

I will re-iterate my call for public input as many times as needed to get better participation from them. As today is only the 5th of the Term, I didn't want to push very hard on the matter, as some, if not most are new here and learning the system. I'll even edit my initial respone above in post #74, stating that public opinion is also desired.

All this aside, I would love to hear your comments on anything happening Judicially this Term. Please accept this post as a personal invitation to comment at anytime on any subject here. :thumbsup:

EDIT: And we heard from President DaveShack too! :salute:

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

Thanks for the explanation. I was looking for discussion threads and did not see any. The court seems to be on top of things and is pretty much ruling the way I would prefer to see anyway, so haven't seen much need for comment... :D

My concerns is that, without a seperate thread for the issues, it will be difficult to follow various discussions in an orderly manner. While a discussion thread for JR's will slow the process down some, it will dramatically improve the ability of citizens to comment and discuss the issues in an orderly manner. Trying to keep multiple discussions in a single thread (current practice) will only hinder the cause of justice, and most importantly, the ability of all citizens to understand the issues, discuss the matters and offer their viewpoints prior to the Judiciary making a ruling.

-- Ravensfire

Thanks for the explanation. I was looking for discussion threads and did not see any. The court seems to be on top of things and is pretty much ruling the way I would prefer to see anyway, so haven't seen much need for comment... :D

My pleasure Mr. President. It is our mission to serve the people.

My concerns is that, without a seperate thread for the issues, it will be difficult to follow various discussions in an orderly manner. While a discussion thread for JR's will slow the process down some, it will dramatically improve the ability of citizens to comment and discuss the issues in an orderly manner. Trying to keep multiple discussions in a single thread (current practice) will only hinder the cause of justice, and most importantly, the ability of all citizens to understand the issues, discuss the matters and offer their viewpoints prior to the Judiciary making a ruling.

-- Ravensfire

Here's where we start to differ in style or opinion anyway. I can definitely see where you're coming from here, and the manner of public discussion you speak of is tried and true in some instances. But I've been around the block a few times as far as the Judiciary goes, and I've seen the "separate thread" practice falter many times. Minimal posting by the citizens about how they felt on a JR made those threads tumbleweeds blowin' through a Ghost town. Eventually they were closed without any real debate or enough input to form a general will of the people.

So this game we're going to do things a little different. Because we've returned to the ways of old and now have a Public Defender and Judge Advocate, our CC process will now exchange roles with the JR process. Hopefully, this will not only encourage more public participation in the CCs, but because of the more fluid approach of the JR process(where we don't dedicate a single thread with a number for this and single thread with a number for that...) a rolling progression will ensue, enabling any citizen to log on to the Judicial thread, find out what's currently being discussed and if the feel the need or desire, can post how they feel about it. It's an attempt to turn things around from the way they were. People seemed to turn away from the Judicial end of the game. This new approach may be lively enough to interest some of our newer players. Anyway, I don't want to bore you with more of this. For now, the system will stay the way it is. It seems to work. I sincerely hope you plan on participating.

DG5JR6
Request made by: Donovan Zoi

Article in question:

Article I. Census, and Amending the Constitution

1. The census shall be defined as the average number
of votes cast, dropping fractions, in each of the
contested elections in the most recent general
election.
2. Ratification of Amendments to the Constitution
shall require each of the following:
a. A poll which is open for at least 96 hours, which
states the text of the proposed new section(s),
the text of the section(s) being replaced, and
posing the question in the form of yes / no /
abstain.
b. A 67% majority of Yes votes over No votes, Abstain
notwithstanding.
c. A total number of votes greater than or equal to
2/3 the census current at the start of voting on
the amendment, dropping any fraction therein.
d. The Amendment poll must first be posted as a
"proposed poll" in the discussion thread created
for the Amendment. The proposed poll must exist
in the discussion thread for 24 hours prior to the
Amendment poll being created. This gives adequate
time for review and changes.

This article meets all pertinent critera and can proceed with polling for amending.

Judge Advocate 08/05/04

DG5JR7
Requested By Commenus

Request
May it please the Court, it would seem that no Article of the Constitution has been ratified which allows for Provinces or Governors. Since no such Article exists, I submit that Provinces and Governors do not exist within the nation of Japanatica, nor its government. Therefore I ask for a Judicial Review of the following two questions:

1. Can Provinces be formed in the nation's territory?

2. Can citizens elected to the Provincial Governor's position make any decisions?

Review: This was a difficult decision to come to, and I will make the first step among the judiciary to make my opinion clear. 24 hours ago in a PM with a fellow judiciary member I was of the opinion that governors are subcontractors of the Domestic Department, provinces being the subcontract. HOWEVER, when I considered the fact there has been "elections" for this position, I came to reconsider this. I thought to myself "why is there elections for these subcontractors, but not others?" (the city naming office for instance). Why are they given entitlements but not others? Therefore my decision is as follows:

Provinces are NOT the domain of governors, they are the domain of noone in fact. Governors have NO constitutional right to:
A) Be Elected
B) Name A province
C) Build Queues
D) Have Lt.Governors
Therefore they can be challenged by any member of the citizenry, and overturned by any member of the Ministry, respecting WOTP of course. Likewise: Governors are entitled to nothing beyond that of a regular citizens, and they work on a volunteer basis only. I am aware the constitution makes reference to provincial governors however neither one is defined nor given any specific creation method. Therefore I must infer they have none at this time. My ruling toward the two answered questions in this Judicial review are as follows:

1. Provinces formed of the nations territory are done so on an un-official basis and have no real existence until relevent laws are passed. They have no single individual assigned to them to name or maintain them, they are the domain of the Ministries. They do not exist in government at this point.

2. "Governors" can make NO decisions as they are not defined in the constitution at this point. Nor in my opinion, can they be elected. An election applies only to the positions mentioned in the constitution with clear definitions. They do not exist in government at this point.

Judge Advocate 08/05/04

I would like a Judical Review regarding on polls in general. I want to know if there are any standards so that I can create polls in the future with no problems.

I would like a Judical Review regarding on polls in general. I want to know if there are any standards so that I can create polls in the future with no problems.

Honorable CivGeneral. You have requested a JUdicial Review on a matter, but have not followed procedure (post #2 of this thread). Specifically, I'm talking about 7.C.1, which states:

C. Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.
1. Any member of the house may request a Judicial Review for interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. The request must be formatted in a YES or NO question format. If it is not, the Judiciary may reformat the request in order to achieve this goal. The existing Law must also be clearly stated in the request.

Your request for a JR does not include a Law with which we can relate to your question. There is also not a YES or NO question, which is not a big deal in most cases as we can usually work up a question for you.

But looking at your request, you seem to be looking for advice on poll writing, not clarification of Law. Therefore, you would not request a JR, you would just ask for said advice.

Off the top of my head, I can think of all the Polling Standards Commission (PSC) threads that have been posted throughout Demogame history. These would be a good starting point. I'm sorry if I came down on you a little too hard about your poll ( i don't really feel I used excesive force), but I had just finished reading Stuck's poll and it was a disaster. Both you and Stuck entered the Demogames at around the same time and should know how to write polls by now. If you don't want to take the time to read all of the information available in the PSC threads, please examine the better written polls posted throughout the Demogames and compare them to the publically trashed polls along side them. Eventually, you will pick up on the tendancies of good poll writing.

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

Dear Judiciary

I am about to lauch the Ringi Reform of Japanatica, and the first target is the city localization and development. As a Judiciary, you are interested in building legal facilities such as courthouse and police stations, and in perspective some wonder as the Forbidden Capital or Capital relovalization in order to reduce city corruption..

So whenever a proposed city comes into the view on that thread, grade it from 0-5 based on how good the city location is. Also grade(0-5%) the city on its future corruption value, as well as distance from capital and forbidden capital5. Then quickly sum up the point checklist, all must be approved to give the final Judiciary Evalutation and approval of alternative.

1. All tiles are explored (For example, no heated debate without data)
2. City is within reasonable distance of the nation center
3. Necessary proposal and grades are submitted in time
4. Ctiy Proposal Thread have been notified
5. Procedure has been followed

When complete, write 3-5 lines on the point selection, and submit it tith the Domestic Affairs Ministry. If the City alternative is approved and selected for polling, you are free to, but not obliged, to write in the city proposal thread in order to influence the outcome. I have posted similar posts in the other Departments.

DG5JR7 Requested by:Comnenus
Regarding Governors and Provinces

May it please the Court, it would seem that no Article of the Constitution has been ratified which allows for Provinces or Governors. Since no such Article exists, I submit that Provinces and Governors do not exist within the nation of Japanatica, nor its government. Therefore I ask for a Judicial Review of the following two questions:

1. Can Provinces be formed in the nation's territory?

2. Can citizens elected to the Provincial Governor's position make any decisions?

As you can see in the Constitution of Japanatica, no Article sets forth Provinces or Governors.

My delay in forming an opinion on this judicial review is the fact that due to my lack of participation in previous DemoGames, I needed to take some time to address the role of governors and provinces in past games. Upon my review, I have come to a decison.

It is in my opinion that provinces are established for organizational manners only. This is in order to distinguish between one region of cities versus another. From this organizational form of view, Provinces have no self-sufficiency. They are not sovereign and they do not have and special powers as a collective group of cites. The power to control commerce, production and science are all controlled by a national government. Even if Article O was in place at this time, the status of provinces would be purely symbolic. Therefore it is my judgement that since provinces have no official standing as sovreign states, they may be formed by the citizenry and government. This is based on the fact that doing so will cause no damage to the constitution or our gameplay.

Governors, like Provinces, are still not mentioned at all in the constitution. Until Article E(which is pending ratification at this time) is passed, governors have no abilities to officially command their respective provinces. The governor may only make suggestions about build queues, the state of workers and the management of each city, but no one has to follow the advice. The state of affairs of cities is currently delegated to the Domestic advisor (The Constitution states "the Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be responsible for all domestic initiatives"). Until Article E passes(If it does), the Governor position shall not be recognized, nor shall the results of any Governor elections. Should article E come into effect, the last elected governor(s) shall take over the resposibility of cities themselves in coordination with the Domestic Minister.

Opinion on DG5JR7:1. Provinces can be formed based on the fact that they create no change in the process of the game.

2. Governors have no official duties, powers or even the right to be recognized as a special position until a law goes into effect that states otherwise. Elected "governors" must wait until they are acknowledged by our system of laws before taking control of anything. Because the right to govern the cities IS delegated to the Domestic Minister already, Article N does not provide basis to allow a governor to take command of a Province.

DG5JR8 Requested by: Donovan Zoi
Regarding the Ability of the President to Reload a Save

Under Article M as written, is the Designated Player granted the unique authority to "reverse" irreversible actions while playing the save at turnchat?

In CivGeneral's Dealing with demands from other nations thread, discussion has been raised on what can be done to plan for and offset unplanned demands from rival nations. It was suggested by someone that the DP could view the demand, then stop the game and take his findings back to the forum. Our President responded that it is not within his right to do such a thing and based on precedent, he is correct.

However, is Article M written in such a way to allow him to do just that? Due to the parade of run-on clauses that Article M contains, it is hard for this legislator to tell.

I participated in that discussion, and it was even I who suggested the President had the authority to reload the save based upon a misinterpretation I had held about the Constitution without rereading it. This mistake I made was due to that fact that while in normal discussion I do not have the Constitution right in front of me. When making any judgements, It is always open.

Based on the constitution, It is my interpretation that the only time a game may be exited without saving and reloaded is during the negotiation of a peace treaty. This is clearly stated in Article M. The Article also prescribes that NO ONE may make any irreversable actions except the current President Pro-Tem.

Opinion on DG5JR8: The Designated Player may not reload a save based upon an irreversable action being taken. The only time a save can be reloaded is upon the renegotiation of a Peace Treaty.

I have proposed a law, the first, which would set a standard for future laws, and differentiate them further from amendments. This process was not outlined in any part of the constitution, though laws were mentioned. It has gone into polling immediately, and is posted here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2073601#post2073601. This is a copy of its text:

WHEREAS the Article E of the Constitution of Japanatica states that the House of the People has a right to pass laws; and

WHEREAS the same article also states that the Supreme Court of Japanatica will review all laws, amendments, and articles; and

WHEREAS the House of the People consists of all registered citizens of Japanatica; and

WHEREAS the Constitution of Japanatica does not specify any method of proposing, approving, or enforcing laws; and

WHEREAS amendments and articles of the Constitution cannot be repealed, have high necessary majorities, and add to or change the constitution rather than exist below it;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of the People of Japanatica, consisting of all properly registered citizens, have the right to pass laws via polls in a method outlined in this resolution, the first of such laws: any citizen may propose a law, and must do so in a topic with the text of the law, a summary if it is in legalese, and a 48-hour poll with the options for (yes), against (no), or otherwise (abstain) whether the proposal should become law. If a majority (greater than half those voting for either yes or no) approve of the law, it takes effect. The three justices of the Supreme Court shall hold collective veto power, as they would with a judicial review of an amendment, but shall not conduct a complete, traditional review of the proposal. Should the law be deemed to be unconstitutional, they may veto it, in which case the vote will be void; otherwise their approval will be given and the people's vote will count. This is not to be considered a regular review, such as that for an amendment, and will not take place in the Judicial thread, or be numbered as such.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the laws shall be numbered and collected, with links to their polls, in a Code of Laws.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any law already passed, including (but not restricted to) this, may be repealed by the same means.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if approved by a majority of the people voting for or against, this law will take effect immediately.

As called for in the constitution, I ask that the Supreme Court review this proposal and decide whether it is or is not constitutional, particularly the part about reviewing future law proposals.

Dear Epimethius,
You cannot submit a bill to be reviewed without first opening a discussion thread on it. Also, when discussion is complete, the law must be submitted in the form of the poll to the Justices. Once it passes Review, a Justice will post the poll.

Until the outlined law-making procedure has been followed, I have issued an order to close your poll. Thank you for your interest, and a law establishing the lower laws is needed, so I urge you to begin discussion immediately!

Thank You,
Public Defender KCCrusader

As Chief Justice, I concur with Public Defender KCCrusader on the matter presented by Epimethius. Proper procedure was not followed in any remote sense. I join KCCrusader in the call for this poll's closure.

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

A discussion on Law 1 as initially presented by Epimethius has been started here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96296). All officials and citizens of Japanatica are invited to participate.

Former Chief Justice Cyc:
I wish you would kindly reconsider your resignation, the nation needs you on the Judiciary Bench

I will be posting this in several places...


To messenger:

Remember this, preferably the whole thing but at least the parts about "message not received, stop by the office", and deliver to the Chief Justice immediately.

---
Chief Justice Cyc,

The scatterbrained dolt you sent with your message couldn't remember what you wanted to say, only that you were hopping mad about something and something about going to find office space. Since I have no idea what he was talking about, feel free to drop by the office any time and we can discuss whatever it was that was bothering you. :D I can't wait till we discover a way to record these things, maybe using symbols on some kind of flat surface...

Regards, President DaveShack

---

Now hurry, and don't mess up like the last messenger did, or I'll have your hide for a throw rug!


See my post in the discussion thread regarding what my support for this effort really means. I agree with the changes which have been proposed so far, now that they have been proposed in the proper manner and in the proper forum. :D

Thank you cyc

DG5JR7
2. "Governors" can make NO decisions as they are not defined in the constitution at this point. Nor in my opinion, can they be elected. An election applies only to the positions mentioned in the constitution with clear definitions. They do not exist in government at this point.

Judge Advocate 08/05/04

Governors are listed as leaders in Article H, therefore they DO exist. There seems to be nothing in our constitution that calls for us to elect anyone. Article J goes into great detail to tell us what elected officials must do but no where in the document does it say we must elect our leaders. Of course it also does not say we cannot elect our leaders. So we fall back on article N which states that things not expressly forbidden are permitted. So we can elect leaders. And even if governors aren't defined in our constitution we can have them since they are not forbidden by either forum rules or the constitution.

DG5JR8
Requested by: Donovan Zoi

Under Article M as written, is the Designated Player granted the unique authority to "reverse" irreversible actions while playing the save at turnchat?

In CivGeneral's Dealing with demands from other nations thread, discussion has been raised on what can be done to plan for and offset unplanned demands from rival nations. It was suggested by someone that the DP could view the demand, then stop the game and take his findings back to the forum. Our President responded that it is not within his right to do such a thing and based on precedent, he is correct.

However, is Article M written in such a way to allow him to do just that? Due to the parade of run-on clauses that Article M contains, it is hard for this legislator to tell

Opinion: The only time irreversable game decisions are allowed other than at the turnchat is for the renegotiation of peace. The president is correct in his assertation that it is not withing his right to do such a thing.

Judge Advocate 08/09/2004

Governors are listed as leaders in Article H, therefore they DO exist. There seems to be nothing in our constitution that calls for us to elect anyone. Article J goes into great detail to tell us what elected officials must do but no where in the document does it say we must elect our leaders. Of course it also does not say we cannot elect our leaders. So we fall back on article N which states that things not expressly forbidden are permitted. So we can elect leaders. And even if governors aren't defined in our constitution we can have them since they are not forbidden by either forum rules or the constitution.

I agree with you donsig. In post #74 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2067761&postcount=74) I posted this and due to the fact that the PD and JA had already posted their Opinions and I had received no input from the citizens, I changed the status of that post from one of waiting to one of a ruling. All three Opinions are now posted in the Judicial Log and the Majority decision was split on the questions. Provinces are allowed, but Governors are not. I would make a special note here, that as Zarn has already been elected Governor and has posted as such in the Instruction thread, this ruling for the Governors will not apply to him, and only be enforced in the future. Zarn has been "grandfathered" in.

Due to the possibility of a tied vote in the next city placement poll, I request an urgent Judicial Review of Article D, with respect to the right to break ties.


Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread. The President
shall be tasked with control of worker actions.
1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, worker allocation, as well
as the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.


Question 1: Does Article D give the Minister of Domestic Affairs the right to break ties on city placement polls?

For question 2, the law to be reviewed is the entire constitution. My apologies for not trying to figure this one out on my own, I want to leave the court with open options.
Question 2: Does any provision of the constitution give anyone the right to break ties in general?

If these questions can be answered prior to the next turnchat we may be able to proceed. If the vote remains a tie and nobody has the right to break ties, we will need to stop prior to founding the city for a followup poll.

Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration of this matter.

To: Provolution
Re: Ringi Reform of Japanatica

This court does not support the program over all. The main concern, other than the proposal being weighed down with too much time consuming detail, is the bottle-neck situation at the Domestic Leader level. The Domestic Minister should not be able to trim the options down to 2 preferences. This is a judgement call and may not reflect the WOTP. In this court's opinion, all proposed options should be polled. This would best represent the WOTP.

President DaveShack has requested a Judicial Review concerning the matter of tied poll results dealing with Official matters. He has asked 2 questions, first dealing with the Domestic Minister in regards to city placement polls, and then dealing with tied polls in general. This court feels that the second question encompasses the first, and therfore negates ruling on it. Thus, DaveShack's request for a Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2081373&postcount=101) will be reduced to his second question:

Question 2: Does any provision of the constitution give anyone the right to break ties in general?

The "Law" in question will be seen as the entirity of the Constitution. This request has been logged as DG5JR9 in post #3 of this thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2050914&postcount=3)

Cyc

The intention with the reform proposal was for someone to look into the non-existant procedure for city localization. I am percfectly happy with the present structured procedure with non-existant detail beyond mapping, as it is the rightful privilege of the Japanatican people to choose userfriendly and simplistic models for decisions.
However, as useless and costly in time my own effort, it still put focus on the appalling
standards for deciding on city locations. I am satisfied with the present polling regime, but would in line with CJ Cycs intentions for egalitarian polling of all options, have the following amendments included, no Ringi system, but a model for streamlining the democratic process, so people do not complain about tweaking the process.

1. The options polled whould be ranked in the order they are submitted in the same public thread, and that ranking, which means no arbitrary ranking, will decide which alternative is alternative A through Z.

2. The name of the citizen should be added behind the alternative, so the people know
the originator of the alternative

3.Public polling includes the right to change vote, however, due to the extra work, this needs to be restricted to a set time before polling.

4. Failure to set up proper procedures for polling democratic policy options as written in the laws, should include a transgression/impeachment clause.

5. Any interdepartmental procedure, affecting several ministries, must be approved by the ministries in question before it goes through judiciary review.

I agree with you donsig. In post #74 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2067761&postcount=74) I posted this and due to the fact that the PD and JA had already posted their Opinions and I had received no input from the citizens, I changed the status of that post from one of waiting to one of a ruling. All three Opinions are now posted in the Judicial Log and the Majority decision was split on the questions. Provinces are allowed, but Governors are not. I would make a special note here, that as Zarn has already been elected Governor and has posted as such in the Instruction thread, this ruling for the Governors will not apply to him, and only be enforced in the future. Zarn has been "grandfathered" in.

One small question:

Who, pray tell, will set build queues in term two?

One small question:

Who, pray tell, will set build queues in term two?

This is why we are hoping article E passes :D

This is why we are hoping article E passes :D

And if it doesn't?

Why don't the two associate justices (or what ever they are called in this game) come to their senses and render a proper decision regarding governors? You could try reading the constitution before posting decisions.

Just a suggestion...

And if it doesn't?

Why don't the two associate justices (or what ever they are called in this game) come to their senses and render a proper decision regarding governors? You could try reading the constitution before posting decisions.

Just a suggestion...

Your opposition to the ruling has been noted. I realize I do not have to add more justification in light of the (hostile :lol: ) opposition but i will happily furhter explain myself. I'm tending to favor a strict interpretation of what is written right now. Although I have read the constitution and Governors are recognized in Article H, their duties are not outlined by the constitution the way everyone else's are. Basically, they exist and can be elected but hold no official duties until it is agreed upon by the people what the governor's job is. If their duties are not defined, but they are created with no real guidelines, it is in my opinion that no one knows thus they could do anything, issue orders on anything not covered by another position or outlawed. And since the action of all domestic affairs (including cities) is currently a part of the DA's duties, it is impossible for a governor to issue orders that could potentially conflict with the DA's. Thus until an article is posted, it is STILL my position that the governor cannot make any real decisions.

Of course, I understand the "grandfather clause" Cyc talked about and am comfortable with the governor retaining the position of past demogames for this term. We have 4 demogames of precedent helping this one out, it shouldnt be to rocky.

DG5JR9 Requested by: DaveShack
Regarding breaking ties on Polls

President DaveShack has requested a Judicial Review concerning the matter of tied poll results dealing with Official matters. He has asked 2 questions, first dealing with the Domestic Minister in regards to city placement polls, and then dealing with tied polls in general. This court feels that the second question encompasses the first, and therfore negates ruling on it. Thus, DaveShack's request for a Judicial Review will be reduced to his second question:

Question 2: Does any provision of the constitution give anyone the right to break ties in general?

The "Law" in question will be seen as the entirity of the Constitution.

First I agree the second question will sufficiently answer the first. The constitution (Article D) states the executive branch (including both the DA and President) "is responsible for determining and implementing the will of the people." This line proposes that it is the duty of the entire branch to find out what the people want. The article also defines the role of the DA as being responsible for all domestic initiatives. I believe, with a combonation of these passages, it is in the Domestic advisors power to settle a tied poll. Also, the polling process is not an official election that is to be certified afterwards. It is simply a method the Advisors use to gather information from the public. If an equal number of people support two options, it should be noted by the advisor, and he should choose an option. Only when an obviously unpopular choice is the course of action taken could a leader be acting for himself only. Quite frankly, the power to break the vote must also given in order to keep the game moving and moving smoothly. This power will not conflict with amendment-making since the number required for passing is clearly stated, and the power to break a tie shall not apply to elections of any kind. Only informational Polls.

Also, since the President is the head of the executive branch, he may also excercise the power to break a tie in the advisors absence.

Summary:
-Polls are tools to gather information, not binding documents
-Executive branch is tasked with determining and implementing the WOTP.
-These facts enable leaders (first the advisor, second the President) to choose an option in the case of a tie on a poll

Opinion on DG5JR9: Any advisor may choose an option the case of a tie on a poll relating to their delegated area of work. In an advisor's absense, the President may make the call as he is the head of the executive department which is responsible for implementing the will of the people. This tie-breaking power only applies to information-gathering Polls, not Elections.

DG5JR9
Requested By DaveShack
Request:

President DaveShack has requested a Judicial Review concerning the matter of tied poll results dealing with Official matters. He has asked 2 questions, first dealing with the Domestic Minister in regards to city placement polls, and then dealing with tied polls in general. This court feels that the second question encompasses the first, and therfore negates ruling on it. Thus, DaveShack's request for a Judicial Review will be reduced to his second question:

Question 2: Does any provision of the constitution give anyone the right to break ties in general?

The "Law" in question will be seen as the entirity of the Constitution.

Opinion: For the purposes of not having an impossibly deadlocked poll, it is within the power of the minister whose jurisdiction encompases the poll in question to break a tie.

DG5JR9

President DaveShack has requested a Judicial Review concerning the matter of tied poll results dealing with Official matters. He has asked 2 questions, first dealing with the Domestic Minister in regards to city placement polls, and then dealing with tied polls in general. This court feels that the second question encompasses the first, and therfore negates ruling on it. Thus, DaveShack's request for a Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2081373&postcount=101) will be reduced to his second question:

Question 2: Does any provision of the constitution give anyone the right to break ties in general?

The "Law" in question will be seen as the entirity of the Constitution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the Opinion of the Chief Justice, Article D emphisizes the responsibility of the members of the Executive Branch to determine and implement the Will of the People. As the Advisor of each Department is responsible for certain aspects of the operations of our nation, with the Will of the People at the base of this responsibility, there may come a time when decisions must be made by said Advisors without the benifit of citizen input, through no fault of their own. This situation may arise from no citizen input on the matter, or in the case of the President's question, a tied poll that shows results of no chosen direction of the public. Therefore, it would be the responsibility of said Advisors to furnish the President with direction, via the TCIT, on matters with inconclusive support in the form of the WOTP.

Chief Justice Opinion: Yes, Article D, to include D.1 - 6, gives authorization to Department Leaders to break ties in polls concerning the juridiction of their Department.

Does the ruling/CJ opinion of DG5JR9 also allow the president to break a tied vote, in the advisors absence? Or is that the task of the deputy?

And is the president allowed to protest against (i.e. veto) the decision of the advisor? Since it is unclear what the actual will of the people is the president could also have a voice in this decisionmaking.

I would also like to point out a point of conflict with DG5JR9:

For the purposes of not having an impossibly deadlocked poll, it is within the power of the minister whose jurisdiction encompases the poll in question to break a tie.

Bolding is mine to point out the restrictive language.

Some lawyers may interpret this MO as endorcing Advisor tie-breaks only in the case of an even number of all choices except abstain. Heck, I could see some nut try to use this to say that "So long as there is even 1 abstenetion, the Abstainer has precedence over the Advisor."

In either case, the lawyer could use this MO to say that a "runoff" is necessary between the tied choices, until either 1 option gains a majority, or else all remaining options (save Abstentions) are tied.

Having read the several Opinions of the Justices, only the Judge Advocate's opinion is restricted thusly. The Public Defender and the Chief Justice have not, in my estimation, made this restriction. Please clarify on the necessity of the nature of Runofs in Informational Polls.

Well, this legal thing has gone too far, no question about it, and ministers are hardly ministers.

Does the ruling/CJ opinion of DG5JR9 also allow the president to break a tied vote, in the advisors absence? Or is that the task of the deputy?

And is the president allowed to protest against (i.e. veto) the decision of the advisor? Since it is unclear what the actual will of the people is the president could also have a voice in this decisionmaking.

First, I would like to thank gert-janl for posing his question to this Court. Citizen participation is sorely needed in this times of forming our Books of Law. Thank you.

In the eyes of this Court, the President is allowed to "break a tied vote" for a poll determining the WOTP on matters falling within the Jurisdiction of the Executive Branch. As the Public Defender has said "Also, since the President is the head of the executive branch, he may also excercise the power to break a tie in the advisors absence.", with " In an advisor's absense, the President may make the call as he is the head of the executive department which is responsible for implementing the will of the people.". These well worded passages when used in combination with the ruling set forth by this Judicial Review (DG5JR9), lay out a tertiary role of the President in the matter of determing the WOTP. Put another way, Article D. emphisizes the responsibility of the members of the Executive Branch to determine and implement the Will of the People. This Executive Branch is headed by the President, who takes instruction from his Council of Ministers. It is a responsibility of the President to have that information available when playing the game. If said Advisor (Leader, Minister, etc.) fails to supply the President with that information, does that relieve the President from his responsibilty of obtaining that information by game time? I think not. Therefore, just as the Advisor must make the stretch to determine the WOTP by breaking a tied poll to fulfill his job, so must the President, when his Advisor fails to supply the information from his own Department. This would authorize the President, in fulfilling the responsibilities of his position, to break a tied vote in this situation. Looking to the Deputy for this information is strictly the perogative of the President and if the President wishes to defer this decision to the Deputy, that is his choice, but the President will still be responsible for the outcome of the decision. And finally, the President may not veto a legally posted instruction from an Advisor concerning the determination of the WOTP, as Article D states that the Preident will "take direction from a Council of Leaders and other elected and appointed officials". It does not say the President will take direction from these people, unless he doesn't like it and decides to veto. If the direction is leglly posted, the President must follow it.

I hope I've answered your question gert-janl. :)

I would also like to point out a point of conflict with DG5JR9:

Some lawyers may interpret this MO as endorcing Advisor tie-breaks only in the case of an even number of all choices except abstain. Heck, I could see some nut try to use this to say that "So long as there is even 1 abstenetion, the Abstainer has precedence over the Advisor."

In either case, the lawyer could use this MO to say that a "runoff" is necessary between the tied choices, until either 1 option gains a majority, or else all remaining options (save Abstentions) are tied.

Having read the several Opinions of the Justices, only the Judge Advocate's opinion is restricted thusly. The Public Defender and the Chief Justice have not, in my estimation, made this restriction. Please clarify on the necessity of the nature of Runofs in Informational Polls.

Honorable Sir Donald III, agian, thank you too for your participation. In response to your question, Article J states "Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people. The will of the people will be determined through discussion and polls, formal or informal." In this regard, it is well known by this court that all polls have a starting time and and ending time. The period between these two times is allotted to the gathering of information pertaing to the issue under the Leader's jurisdiction. Once the poll ends, the information is totaled and interpreted by the Leader (Advisor, Minister, etc.). The information is not looked upon as "Well these results are thus unless some other contingent may happen outside the time frame of the poll". The information is not subject to change by outside influence, as poll results would not change after the poll ends. So, in essance, if a poll is tied when a poll is over, it's tied. The poll cannot say of itself, "these are the results except if you look at it this way". What's done is done.

I believe this is what the Judge Advocate meant when he said "an impossibly deadlocked poll", and this Court stands behind JA Immortal's words.

Well, this legal thing has gone too far, no question about it, and ministers are hardly ministers.

Come again, Foreign Affairs Minister Provolution? I'm not sure what your implying here.

Frankly, I really do not see the point with lengthy political campaigns prior to elections where we compare policy platform for the electorate to choose someone with a program.
Now I see why certain candidates did not bother to make clear about their intentions, since every smallest detail should be polled to death. Some people love polls, some people love polls medium and some people love polls the least. Maybe we should poll how many polls each Ministry should hold through a term, and maybe we should start polling overall programs that would last a certain set of turns. I see this game is having a hard start due to many events, and Cyc, you are not to blame, as many things are situational, and directly derived from human error in especially polls and running the game, but also in a legal quagmire which is getting lesser and lesser sane to follow.

I and many other would have no problem with a fair code of laws written in the beginning of the game, and rather dealt with the problems as they arose.
Yes, we could even poll the interpretation of the law in a juror system.
I just see that I do not find term 1 as enjoying as originally thought due to the failure in setting up procedures, polls and getting the laws done.
From the side of FA, TA and MA, we have some distinct interest in actually operating as ministers in the sense that some of the strategizing and conceptualization is carried into the game, as the elections was pretty close. However, what some of us stated wanted to do in these elections is more neglibible, due to the present polling frenzy.

I suggest that decisions we make for the game has longer consequences than just one turn. For example, when iron is chosen, or monarchy is chosen in polls, we should not repoll for the slightest even. To make it interesting, to de-poll a certain agreed polling strategy should not be that easy. It should also be harder in turnchats to stop the game prematurely due to agreements on procedure, where procedures and contigency
plans should have been there in the first place. Such contigency lpans should take meausre for every scenario. We cannot stop the game every time a diplosession pops up or we cannot stop the game for every settler we make, we need to scale what is going to happen some turns away. I can see from the postings that some people are still posting vigorously and are having fun, but some of us is losing interest.

Someone cynically referred to this fatigue, that is why they need "new blood" (sounds like a Civ-vampire to me. Fair enough, I lost the city localization reform, it was too top heavy, but the alternative multiple flawed location polling and lack of contigency plans made no sense, and all these polling ties... Now suddenly it would be okay to poll two options to make it easier for some people, and some people want to repoll everything already polled, in fact polled several times. Monarchy route for example, has won two three times already, until it loses the perpetual polls brought up by the opposition.

where is the secret police, where is the torturechambers, where is the penal colonies?

Right now, even the thought of Polly Peanuts makes me feel Queasy...

Yes, Provolution, I pretty much agree with a lot of what you say, to some extent. But this is the Democracy game an the people do rule.

I definitely do not appreciate the repolling efforts made by some in this game. An initial polling should be respected, unless a situation signifigantly changes.

I personally like to see strong leadership qualities from the people we elect. This is sometimes hard to find. I also appreciate a Leader who listens to and divines the WOTP appropriately. These two aspects can work in concert with each other if care is put into planning and implementation. At this point I'm not sure what to tell you, except press on and try to make a change. I've seen good people just throw their hands in the air and walk away. I've seen people with only their best interest stay and work the system, the best they could. And I've also seen the opposite in both cases. People come and go. They try to make a difference and place their mark on history. Some are successful, others not. It is up to the individual person to bring this about.

In regards to your program and its success, I would refer you to my Term as Domestic Leader (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=355104&postcount=3) in Term 4 of DG1. The nation of Phoenatica was in dire need of a motivating shot in the arm as far as development went. We were doing fairly well on all fronts, but had fallen into a lag concerning waiting for the other shoe to drop in societal progression. When winning the election for Domestic Leader, I determined that new form of Budgetary Control was needed. I outlined this change in my initial post to the citizens, set up the Buget thread and moved forward with the plan. It hit a few snags in the begining, but with constant care and a lot of work, the plan succeeded and the growth of the nation was remarkable. Hopefully, this can serve as an example of what one can do in the Demogame. As it turned out, this Term as Domestic Leader worked out well for me. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=401681&postcount=135)

Well, this legal thing has gone too far, no question about it, and ministers are hardly ministers.

It's about time somebody said as much. Ministers are simply poll takers, feeling the pulse of an anarchic mob.

Well, in that sense, with the present mandate as poll taker only, I think we could find some polling secretary to do the job equally well. There may well be an anarchic mob, but then people should not work too hard to become elected. If you look on the threads, some energy went into those platforms. If people want to look away from the results of these elections as invalid to the bearing of this game, I would not recommend people to use to much energy on them. Someone should merely state their polling procedures, and the ability to conduct a poll and post the results, plain and simple, no need to look for other qualifications.

Provolution, thank you very much for your thoughts on the role of leaders. I have started a new discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2086288#post2086288) so we can find out how the people really want the game to run. I'd love to see some suggestions on how leaders can follow the WOTP but have more opportunities to promote their position on the issues. :D

May it Please the Court!

As your Honors may know, recently, a poll to determine the next city site ended in a tie. The Opinion of the Justices (Ref DG5JR9) was to grant tie-breaking power to the Advisors. Thus, Noldodan was given authority to choose between the tied sites.

However, new circumstances have presented themselves before the Orders could be carried out. The Presence of the Babylonians has set many citizens, myself included, in a state of insecurity.

I, as well as many others, do not want to just march straight to defeat merely because "we have a set of orders from the People." (At this point, Noldo's final answer would not matter much, the People have said South in general. We did not know about the Warrior until after our Settler set out.)

Therefore, I pose these questions before the Justices:

1. Should a significant event (one on the order of stopping a turnchat prematurely) allow for the reconsideration of orders still standing? And, if so, who should do the reconsideration, the appropriate Minister/Governor, the President, the House writ large, the Judiciary, or any combination of the above?

2. If an event occurs that disrupts or threatens to disrupt standing orders (i.e. Enemy Stack approaching City with minimal or no defense which is building improvemetns, Rival Civ founding a city within a Radius 2 of a determined City Sire, etc.) in the middle of a TC, but is not judged significant enough to stop a TC, can the appropriate Minister/Governor and/or Designated Player reconsider/rescind standing orders with a justifiable reason, posted in a relevant place such as the Turnchat thread?


Note: I am not asking if such reconsideration should be mandated. Merely that the option be there in case we need it. I thank their Honors.

Note 2: Actually, I should probably ask first of all if you have standing to answer these. If you don't on the absence of any previous laws, then I'll take this to the House.

Sir Donald III , you are one of the more sensible people in this forum, as you go by the issue and not the person, so I respect you.. :)

I agree with you 100 %, that we need contingency plans for every turnchat, to enable it to go for a designated set of turns, with virtually all eventualities covered. If the variables are too many, the people must poll conditional parameters for that TC.

In fact, In Daveshacks thread, excellent initiative President, we need to balance out the relation of election, mandate, law, discussion and polls better. Right now the ministerial positions are merely polltakers.

So, what do you think?

In response to Sir Donald III, I see no mention of a Judicial Review in your post, nor is any Law or rule mentioned. Therefore, I gather you are presenting these questions to the Court in hopes of getting an informal answer. Please keep in mind that this post is exactly that.

1. Should a significant event (one on the order of stopping a turnchat prematurely) allow for the reconsideration of orders still standing? And, if so, who should do the reconsideration, the appropriate Minister/Governor, the President, the House writ large, the Judiciary, or any combination of the above?

To begin with, I can assume that a Turn Chat has been stopped and that is the premise behind this question. The orders in question were the Instructions posted legally for the Turn Chat (t/c) that was stopped. This is the context for which I am answering. As a t/c was stopped, obviously the next t/c to be conducted will be a new one. For this next t/c a Turn Chat Instruction thread must be posted for Leaders enabled to do so, to post Instructions for the DP in. The time in between the Turn Chats warrants reconsideration by all Leaders in light of new and important information. Those Leaders need to divine the WOTP as to whether new or different Instructions should be posted for the next t/c. Reconsideration is always an option anytime the t/c is not in session. Which brings us to your next question.

2. If an event occurs that disrupts or threatens to disrupt standing orders (i.e. Enemy Stack approaching City with minimal or no defense which is building improvemetns, Rival Civ founding a city within a Radius 2 of a determined City Sire, etc.) in the middle of a TC, but is not judged significant enough to stop a TC, can the appropriate Minister/Governor and/or Designated Player reconsider/rescind standing orders with a justifiable reason, posted in a relevant place such as the Turnchat thread?

In this situation we are still in the active t/c session, and you ask if that same real time reconsideration only with "on the fly" implementation is allowed. This is a very tricky question to answer, as you ask about Ministers AND the President/DP. I believe it's common knowledge (or common law ;) ) that Minister's are unable to recind (or change) their posted Instructions during a t/c. They may present advice to the President/DP for situations that fall within their jurisdiction, but they niether demand action or justify such action by the means of their Office.

I have answered this question about the DP before, and still believe my answer to be correct. Regardless of what happens in a t/c, the DP needs to follow the legally posted Instructions in the Turn Chat Instruction (TCI) thread (some people call this the TCIT). It doesn't matter if the Instruction is for a pre-turn move or for something on the 5th turn. Legally posted Instructions need to be followed if gameplay is to continue. That's the key. The DP has the authority to stop the t/c before the 10 turn limit. Anytime a justifiable t/c stopping event occurs, the DP may halt the chat. At this time, my answer to your first quetion would apply (time in between t/cs used for possible new Instructions). But if the DP chooses to go on and proceed taking turns in the t/c, all legally posted Instructions need to be followed. It's this occurance when one (the DP) must tread lightly, as there are consequences for not following legally posted Instructions. Having a CC filed against you when you are Preident is not good resume material ;). Niether is making a serious mistake due to unforeseen circumstances.

I hope this helps.

I'm tending to favor a strict interpretation of what is written right now.

I respectfully ask the justice to re-read article N.

I would also like to point out that our beloved constitution (well, the one we had before the tinkering that was done for DG5) was intentionally written in a general and vague manner to allow flexibility in interpretation. (The idea was to make a document that could be reused demogame after demogame while the lower laws changed from game to game as we saw fit.) It makes no sense to try to strictly interpret something that is vague to begin with!

Frankly, my contempt for this court is almost as much as I had for the term one court last game. Now before you all go beserk I am not talking about the justices. I think you three are doing as best you can under the circumstances. It is a shame though that we started two games in a row with only a partial ruleset in place only to needlessly overwork our judiciary members. :(

I thank His Honor for his insight. (I cannot refer to it as an Opinion in this thread because that would require a JR ;) ) I am now glad that I did not specify to have a JR for this because it might have provoked some ill-fated battles over Question 1. Now your insight on Question 2, I may have to think about for a while. It can probably be summed up in one of two sentences:

1. Be ready to Save and Quit at any time, for you know not when the Barbs, (or the Babs,) will pop up from nowhere. Or

2. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

I respectfully ask the justice to re-read article N.

I would also like to point out that our beloved constitution (well, the one we had before the tinkering that was done for DG5) was intentionally written in a general and vague manner to allow flexibility in interpretation. (The idea was to make a document that could be reused demogame after demogame while the lower laws changed from game to game as we saw fit.) It makes no sense to try to strictly interpret something that is vague to begin with!

Frankly, my contempt for this court is almost as much as I had for the term one court last game. Now before you all go beserk I am not talking about the justices. I think you three are doing as best you can under the circumstances. It is a shame though that we started two games in a row with only a partial ruleset in place only to needlessly overwork our judiciary members. :(
i beliebe donsig was right in saying that the constitution should have as little laws as possible, and leave any additional laws in the CoL or something of that such

Thank you for your comments, Black Hole. I think we can all agree with that point. It is always a goal to have a minmal Constitution, although sometimes that goal is hard to achieve. Right now, we're just trying to get a complete document posted. Once that is done, we can refine it until we get our desired product. Also, as the CoL grows in content, it will help us in clarifying what goes where. :)

With respect to contingency plans for changes in circumstances during the chat, the preferred way to handle this is to have the instructions be general in nature.

Some examples would be "Attack city name using the available tactics and units best suited for this mission" or "Explore generally to the west. Specific moves and direction changes at DP discretion depending on what is uncovered". The instructions used by the Domestic Minister in setting sliders are also a prime example, "use the lowest percentage which results in the minimum turns of research, without going negative gpt."

We also get into conditional instructions when responding to demands "If Babylon asks for less than 10g, give it to them. If they ask for a tech or anything valued more than 10g, refuse."

Stopping is often the best way when conditions change during a chat, though some would argue we should just take some risks and play on.

As a citizen, I present this proposed poll for an Amendment to the Code of Laws to the Court for Judicial Review. I have prematurely posted the poll and would appreciate any expiditing possible. Thank you.

Proposed Poll for an Amendment to the Code of Laws. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2087940&postcount=43)

Cyc, as a citizen has presented a proposed poll for an Amendment to the Code of Laws to this court for Judicial Review. This Judicial Review as been posted in post #3 of this thread as DG5JR10. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2050914&postcount=3)

DG5JR10

In reviewing this Proposed Poll, I as Chief Justice, find that it in no way conflicts with existing law. The Legislation passes review.

DG5JR10 Requested by: Cyc
Regarding the establishment of CoL

Opinion on DG5JR10: This legislation in no way violates our standing laws, and should move to the ratification process.

DG5JR5

This Judicial Review still appears as "OPEN" in the list of Reviews before the Court in post #3 of this thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2050914&postcount=3) It is still "OPEN" as this JR was seen as pending due to an Amendment to Article H of the Constitution. This JR was filed during the time when the original Article H had wording that was applicable. The JR reads as such:

DG5JR5
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning the legality of a Citizen holding two Offices at once by virtue of winning two elections simultaneously. The question wraps around the issue of a Candidate running for more than one Office at a time. If a Candidate wins two elections simultaneously, is this a violation of Article H (posted below).

"May it please the Court, I am petitioning for Judicial Review of the following situation which has arisen. Is it constitutional for a citizen to hold two offices simultaneously, yes or no? The offices in question are Vice-President and Deputy Culture Minister. Article H states:


Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial
Governor) simultaneously.

While neither the Deputy position nor the Vice-President are specifically named, it might be considered to be implied, and should the Culture Minister be unable to carry out their duties, the Deputy may then be required to fill that position

Therefore, I feel that a Judicial Review is in order so that we may proceed in a forthright manner."

As an Amendment to Article H has a Judicial Review pending, prior to being polled, the Majority Opinion for this Judicial Review may be delayed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Because of the passage of the Amendment to Article H, wording for that Article eliminates the possibility of the above mentioned situation from happening. Article H in its current form is posted below:

Article H.
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Vice-President, Department Leader,
Judiciary, Provincial Governor, Deputy) simultaneously,
nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
commencement of the general election.

Because of the change in legislation, this Judicial Review is closed.

Because of the passage of the Amendment to Article H, wording for that Article eliminates the possibility of the above mentioned situation from happening. Article H in its current form is posted below:

Article H.
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Vice-President, Department Leader,
Judiciary, Provincial Governor, Deputy) simultaneously,
nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
commencement of the general election.

Because of the change in legislation, this Judicial Review is closed.

This won't be enforced until the next term I imagine since the law did not specifically name the deputy or VP positions when the election took place.

DG5JR10
Requested by:cyc

Review: CoL (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2050914&postcount=3)

Opinion: In reviewing this Proposed Poll, I find that it in no way conflicts with existing law. The Legislation passes review, although I may have reservations about the COL later after I give it some longer thought, it is legal.

Judge Advocate 13(Happy Friday Everyone)/08/04

Dear Judicial Leaders

I am sorry to inform that our beloved Deputy of Foreign Affairs, Bootstoots San, has been MIA for more than a week. Search parties could not find his whereabouts.
I will therefore humbly ask the Judiciary to promote my loyal Foreign Assistant Blackheart to become the new Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Please PM both of us to inform on the decision.

Yours sincerely
Provolution

Dear Judicial Leaders

I am sorry to inform that our beloved Deputy of Foreign Affairs, Bootstoots San, has been MIA for more than a week. Search parties could not find his whereabouts.
I will therefore humbly ask the Judiciary to promote my loyal Foreign Assistant Blackheart to become the new Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Please PM both of us to inform on the decision.

Yours sincerely
Provolution
4 Problems Provulation:

1. Article G never passed(http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94833)
2. Bootstots may not be considered an elected offical(since he is a deputy)
3. You say it has been only 1 week(must be 2)
4. Unfortunately blackheart wouldn't become the new deputy, unless u get to decide who the new deputy(it may be up to the citizens, i dont know)

of course problems 2-4 depend on article g which hasnt passed...

Well negative again Mr blackhole, who purposedly misspelled my name :)

WEll, he has been gone for 2 weeks now, and we may well deputize our deputy if the runner up does not show up. We are not going to have subsidary mid term elections anyways, and Blackheart knows what the Dept has been doing. In fact, the Judiciary is working on this issue right now. As a citizen, you sould rest your little head and let the Judicary do the process. Well Blackhole, you are about to use up your quota for insults without me getting back...

Well negative again Mr blackhole, who purposedly misspelled my name :)

WEll, he has been gone for 2 weeks now, and we may well deputize our deputy if the runner up does not show up. We are not going to have subsidary mid term elections anyways, and Blackheart knows what the Dept has been doing. In fact, the Judiciary is working on this issue right now. As a citizen, you sould rest your little head and let the Judicary do the process. Well Blackhole, you are about to use up your quota for insults without me getting back...
i really didnt mean to misspell your name, i have to burn that into my brain..., but if u want to get technical my name has an underscore in it, i am truly sorry about the name thing

i am just trying to point out the only legal way to get him out of office is a CC/PI under my interpetation of the law
by no way did i try to make it negative, or anything... you take every critisized comment i give u negative, while I mean nothing to be negative
all i wanted to to was insure that the law was followed, but i guess i wont comment on the judiciary's activities anymore
the problem with a vague rulset(i like it better than a strict one) is that it can be interperted many ways and as a citizen I can point out my idea what it is...

Black_hole You are fine, but the Judiciary are already looking into it. I wanted Blackheart to take over now, as he is the only one that is fully up to speed with the program we awas elected on. The deputy is supposed to follow that program.

Black_hole You are fine, but the Judiciary are already looking into it. I wanted Blachole to take over now, as he is the only one that is fully up to speed with the program we awas elected on. The deputy is supposed to follow that program.
u mean blackheart take over ;)

May it Please the Court!

I am happy to present to you this Proposed Poll for our prodigal Article G for Judicial Review!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2092306&postcount=75

Please respond will all needed deliberation and all possible timeliness.

Respectfully,

Sir Donald III.

u mean blackheart take over ;)

Take over and prepare my plans for world domination :king:. But really, I haven't seen Bootstoots on in a while and as Provolution said, I am up to date on current affairs and plans.

he posted in the abscense registry
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94805

The problem that has arisen for me is that while boots has actually posted in the absence registry, he gave no definite time of the end of his absence. This leads me to conclude he's out for the long haul.

I agree with the Judge Advocate. Considering this and the newly proposed legislation in the proposed poll for an Amendment to Article G of the Constitution, I would think that Minister Provolution's problem is "in-house" and could be dealt with as such. G.2 states that the Deputy position is appointed, and there for Bootstoot's replacement would not be handled by the President. The President would handle vacant "elected" positons, as stated in G.3 and that would be for an absence of 6 days. Bootstoots has been away for 10 days now. I find it feasible that a Minister could at this point replace his Deputy with another appointment.

Sir Donald III has presented this Court with a request for a Judicial Review on his proposed poll for an Amendment to Article G of the Constitution. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2092306&postcount=75)

This request has been accepted and posted in post #3 of this thread as DG5JR11.

DG5JR11

In reviewing this Proposed Poll, I as Chief Justice, find that it in no way conflicts with existing law. The Legislation (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2092306&postcount=75) passes my review.

DG5JR11

After review of the proposed legislation and standing legislation, I find the Amendment to article G does not conflict with existing law. This poll should move to the polling process.

Your Honor, Point of order:

In the Judicial Log Post #12, it says that Article G deals with Provinces and Governors. This is incorrect. Article G deals with Terms of Office, Deputies, and Vacancies and Appointments to Elected Offices

Your Honor, Point of order:

In the Judicial Log Post #12, it says that Article G deals with Provinces and Governors. This is incorrect. Article G deals with Terms of Office, Deputies, and Vacancies and Appointments to Elected Offices

Sorry, SD3. I was reading too many JRs at once, and trying to update everything. Thank you for the correction. My apologies, I will correct the error.

CJ Cyc
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/dogezas.gif

DG5JR11
Requested by: Sir Donald III
Request: May it Please the Court!

I am happy to present to you this Proposed Poll for our prodigal Article G for Judicial Review!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showp...06&postcount=75

Ruling: I find the poll in question constitutionally sound.

I would like to thank the court again for its prompt and professional consideration of all matters brought before it.

:goodjob: :clap: :thanx:

Thank you, Mr. President. I must say, last night's Turn Chat revealed a much stronger Chief Executive. Well done.

Does a government office not defined in the constitution allowed to post legally binding instructions in the Turn Chat Instruction Thread?

Example; http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2105358&postcount=2

Articles Pertaining to this:
Article D:
Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread. The President
shall be tasked with control of worker actions.
1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, worker allocation,
as well as the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Minister of Science shall be responsible for all tech
acquisition, as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
keeping of the peace and the construction of wonders.

The Office of City Naming is not in the constistution as seen above.

Article J:

Elected officials must plan and act according to the will
of the people. The will of the people will be determined
through discussion and polls, formal or informal. If pertinent
discussion is done outside the scope of the DG forums, then it must
be documented in the Turnchat Instruction Thread 6 hours
prior to the commencement of the turnchat by the appropriate
leader.

As you can see Epimethius is not posting as an elected leader or even a deputy, altho he is a deputy he is posting instructions which have no elected offical overseeing them thus they should be declared illegal.

Article N:


Article N: Rights reserved to the people
As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions not
forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to
be within the right of every citizen. Actions prescribed by this
Constitution may be substituted by other similar actions, provided
such substitution lies within the spirit of these rules.

since the constitution doesnt explicitaly outlaw this, it could be considered legal. But, I consider the above to be within the spirit of the constitution, thus illegal.


I would like to thank the court in advance for considering my Judical Review request, and i am sorry if i posted it wrong...

Black Hole has requested a Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2108020&postcount=157) to consider whether a Government Office not defined in the Constitution is allowed to post legally binding instructions in the Turn Chat Instruction Thread. He is referencing Articles D, J, and N with this request. An example of the post can be found here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2105358&postcount=2)

This request has been accepted and posted in post #3 of this thread as DG5JR12. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2050914&postcount=3)

DG5JR12

I will preface this Opinion with a brief history of the Office of City Naming.

City naming was started back in Demogame 1. The initial idea to create this citizen's perk was well accepted, as it increased citizen participation and helped develop our nation's historical content. The naming of each city was done from the Citizen Registry (CR), through the memory of the people present at the chat, not a bonafide list of names. This turned out to be a bad idea, and in Term 4 we decided to figure it out from the begining and make a list.

In DG2, the Cartographic Office (lead by FortyJ) not only listed our maps for us, but also did a great job with our first official listing of city names in chronological order.

DG3 saw the emergance of the Office of City Names (created by zorven). This was another great piece of work.

DG4 saw the Census Office take control of not only the Demographics of our citizens, but the City Naming list (again created by zorven). This was indeed the best application for both ideas thus far. By having both the census and city naming located in the same thread, citizens could announce a move to a new city and update their city naming right at the same time (provided they updated their citizen registry post). Niether of these needed game applications were an elected Office, but designing the Census Office, zorven wisely assumed the responsibility named in Code of Standards (CoS) H.2 of the DG4 Constitution.

Please take note that all of these attempts at city naming were done by people in their first Demogame, except in DG4, which turned out to be the cream of the crop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In regards to Black Hole's question, I did not need to go beyond Article D to come to a conclusion, as it covers the points I need to make a decision.
It states:
The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread.
Epimethius position is niether elected or appointed. I can find no reference of the City Naming office being part of the Domestic Deputy Minister's responsibilities. He is certainly not a member of the Council of Leaders in his city naming capacity. The Turn Chat Instruction thread is for these Leader to communicate with the President/DP legal Instructions for use in the Turn Chat. Therefore, Epimethius has no legal authorization to post binding instructions for the President/DP in said thread. I believe it may have been my idea for the City Naming Office official to post the city names for the President (as a courtesy). The amount of names posted by that official would reflect the amount of cities to be started in that Turn Chat alone. I still see no problem with this, but all of the added comments and instruction by Epimethius are unneccesary and unwanted as well as illegal. He cannot demand of or instruct the President/DP to do anything in this capacity.

Article J speaks of elected officials planning and acting according to the WOTP. As Epimethius was NOT elected to this voluntary position, this Article is irrelevant.

Article N speaks of the rights reserved to the People. Also about how all actions not forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to
be within the right of every citizen. Well, posting instructions are not within the rights of all people, as stated in Article D of the Constitution. With the other legislated contradictions I see to Epimethius' actions, I cannot find them to be within the spirit of the law. So for me, Article N is also irrelevant.

DG5JR12 Opinion ~ In the eyes of the Chief Justice, Epimethius, in his capacity as the head of the City Naming office may post the names of cities to be started in a Turn Chat Instruction thread as a courtesy to the President/DP. But he has no authority to post any binding instructions concerning the names, nor can he alter any of the registered names.

I would like to thank the CJ for his kind words in DG5JR12 about my past work.

I would like to thank the CJ for his kind words in DG5JR12 about my past work.

My pleasure, zorven. I have said many times how I feel you are a hard worker and a great Leader. My opinion has not changed. If we disagree in opinion about a small item here and there, take no heed.

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

thank-you cyc, for your quick opinon on this JR

thank-you cyc, for your quick opinon on this JR
No problemo, Black Hole. Keep in mind we still need to wait for the Opinions of the other two Justices. :)

No problemo, Black Hole. Keep in mind we still need to wait for the Opinions of the other two Justices. :)
of course, the game wouldn't be called a democracy otherwise :D

DG5JR12
Requested By: Black_Hole
Request: Pertaining to Epimethius and the City Naming Office and percieved overstepping of boundries constituional and orderly. The lack of accurate instructions is included.

Opinion: Im not going to flower it up as my most esteemed colleague did, mostly out of laziness, partly because I dont know what to say :lol:

Anyway....

As stated in constituional article D the president takes instructions from elected officials, but not EXCLUSIVELY elected officials. As long as something in the turnchat thread has to do with instructions and not debate, I really dont see a problem with one or two posts by city naming officials and national park officials and so on. Epi is doing a volunteer job, as had been doing it well until recently, perhaps Epi has become bored, perhaps he is being vindictive, I dont care either way.

I feel as though Epi can continue to post ACCURATE information in the turnchat thread about city names, but I remind him he does not have any duties outside of this.

Epi: If you will post accurate information in the turnchat about city names only, you are welcome to continue to do so.

However, if you screw up one more time, I will either persue the removal of you from this position or the removal of the position entirely and relegate it to the President. I hope I have made this clear, do you job right and I will gladly support the continuation of it, screw up again, and I will not.

Judge Advocate AUgust 19, 2004.

On the matter of city naming, as President I have been viewing the posts from that office in Turnchat Instruction threads as being a voluntary bookkeeping service. Naming of cities can't really be a binding instruction because it does not affect irreversable game actions. At any point, a mistake can be corrected, and we have quite a tradition of Presidents who were pressed for time and did not have this service available naming cities "needs a name", "rename me please", etc. Let's not make it more an issue than it needs to be. :)

DG5JR12Submitted by:Black_Hole
Regarding City Naming Office

I have come to a decision regarding this matter very quickly. It is in my opinion that in no way are the City Naming Office instructions binding in any way shape or form. This is because the act of naming cities is reversable on any turn. Therefore, if a city is named one thing, but a majority of the citizens object, It is feasible that the people could make their decison regarding the city known. And since leaders must follow the WOTP, there would be no debate on whether to change the name or not. Therefore the instructions from the city naming office are irrelevant.

Opinion on DG5JR12:The instructions posted by offices not mentioned in the constitution or appointed by the president are not binding legal instructions.

Just to note, Immortal was banned for 3 days in the OT forum. Hopefully, this judicary behaves itself... ;)

I don't know if that ruling should stand, on the following grounds:
-I was not here to defend myself and my position.
-Cyc was biased, since we've had problems like this before, and he has in the past contested my use of judgement.
-As an extraconstitutional office under no one's juristiction, I, like the CIA, can do whatever I want. ;)

Oh, and can anyway translate "Regent Town" into Japanese for me? ;)

Actually, I'll probably go along with that ruling. Makes sense. But I won't enjoy it. I would like a clause, however, stating that I may solicit members to change their city names (IE when I get an idea I ask them for permission).

Thank you, Epimetuis, for the input. This Court has been looking for Citizen input all Term and we're happy to receive yours. As far as the clause you requested, I think it would be well within your rights (just as any Citizen) to ask someone to change the name of their city. I doubt you will have much success, and a clause in this regard would not help you in seeking a change. Again, thank you.

I don't know if that ruling should stand, on the following grounds:
-I was not here to defend myself and my position.
-Cyc was biased, since we've had problems like this before, and he has in the past contested my use of judgement.
-As an extraconstitutional office under no one's juristiction, I, like the CIA, can do whatever I want. ;)

Oh, and can anyway translate "Regent Town" into Japanese for me? ;)

Actually, I'll probably go along with that ruling. Makes sense. But I won't enjoy it. I would like a clause, however, stating that I may solicit members to change their city names (IE when I get an idea I ask them for permission).
about the defending yourself,
this judicial review was not against you(thats what CC's are for), but clarifying the rules that about extra government offices
i just used you as an example

I don't know if that ruling should stand, on the following grounds:
-I was not here to defend myself and my position.
-Cyc was biased, since we've had problems like this before, and he has in the past contested my use of judgement.
-As an extraconstitutional office under no one's juristiction, I, like the CIA, can do whatever I want. ;)

Oh, and can anyway translate "Regent Town" into Japanese for me? ;)

Actually, I'll probably go along with that ruling. Makes sense. But I won't enjoy it. I would like a clause, however, stating that I may solicit members to change their city names (IE when I get an idea I ask them for permission).

Epimethius,

As a citizen that didn't like a particular ruling, you CAN overturn that ruling, by proposing a law that would alter the law (or lack thereof) in question.

Regardless of what you think of Cyc (and he and I have also had issues), if the law isn't unconstitutional, he will approve it. Same with the other justices.

-- Ravensfire

Oh, and can anyway translate "Regent Town" into Japanese for me? ;)
Simply spending five minutes to find a translation: Shikken Machi, but I want it to stay Regent Town. Why do our names have to be "Japanesefied?" Just because we are playing as Japan, doesn't mean our entire city naming system needs to be Japanese. Why don't you want us speaking Japanese in the threads? After all we're playing Japan. :rolleyes: Thank you for letting me have the oppourtunity to defend myself after you brought me in a conflict I had no participation in (I guess I do now).

Edit - Thanks Cheiftess for the correction.

Well, I guess that means I won't need to pm you to ask for permission.

Epimethius, you are not to ask other people to japanize their city names. Nor are you to do it for them then ask if its alright, do you understand? Your poisition does not have the power to do that and if continue you do it there will be no position for you to volunteer for.

I am tired of hearing complaints against you every time a city is founded that you are running your VOLUNTEER position contrary to its role.

consider this me contested your use of judgement.

Regent Man you do not need to change your cities name.

Regent Man you do not need to change your cities name.
Thank you Immortal. I had no intention of doing so anyway.

Simply spending five minutes to find a translation: Shikken Toshi, but I want it to stay Regent Town. Why do our names have to be "Japanesefied?" Just because we are playing as Japan, doesn't mean our entire city naming system needs to be Japanese. Why don't you want us speaking Japanese in the threads? After all we're playing Japan. :rolleyes: Thank you for letting me have the oppourtunity to defend myself after you brought me in a conflict I had no participation in (I guess I do now).

"Toshi" is the wrong word for town. You want "machi". Machi is the suffix for a town.

Epimethius, you are not to ask other people to japanize their city names. Nor are you to do it for them then ask if its alright, do you understand? Your poisition does not have the power to do that and if continue you do it there will be no position for you to volunteer for.

I am tired of hearing complaints against you every time a city is founded that you are running your VOLUNTEER position contrary to its role.

consider this me contested your use of judgement.

Regent Man you do not need to change your cities name.

I agree partially with this. Directly asking someone to translate their city name to Japanese is not appropriate. A comment that it would be nice if the name were Japanese or that all names should be Japanese is not out of place, as long as that is as far as it goes.

You guys take this too seriously and make enemies between yourselves :(
Simply make a poll about epi's position, legalize it or turn it off. Or make a poll about 'japanized' names, if people want it than for example epi can suggest 'altered' name and citizen can chose if he wants to change a name according to epi's proposal or leave it as it was.
I personally don't have anything against those japanese names, epi can ask people to change their city names, but can't make them to if they don't want to change it.
If you can't agree about this make polls and election (if needed) for that position and end this in a normal way.

You guys take this too seriously and make enemies between yourselves :(
Simply make a poll about epi's position, legalize it or turn it off. Or make a poll about 'japanized' names, if people want it than for example epi can suggest 'altered' name and citizen can chose if he wants to change a name according to epi's proposal or leave it as it was.
I personally don't have anything against those japanese names, epi can ask people to change their city names, but can't make them to if they don't want to change it.
If you can't agree about this make polls and election (if needed) for that position and end this in a normal way.

Very good point Invy. I have nothing to add, I agree with Invy on this 100%.

Using the position of honorary chair of city naming does not entail him the right to request anything. Citizens must be clear that if Epimethius requests you to japanize your name, it is on the basis of citizen to citizen request and has no bearing on the position.

Order In The Court! :D I'm Baaack.

Thanks eyrei! :thumbsup:

:hammer:

Order In The Court! :D I'm Baaack.

Thanks eyrei! :thumbsup:

:hammer:

/me takes off powdered wig and throws it in the bushes

"umm..hey boss"

:lol:

You will be missed Judge Advocate Immortal. Thank you for your participation in our rulings. Good luck.

Question for the court: if a compaint were raised against a citizen for infringing on someone else's basic rights, would such a complaint be handled prior to end of term, or after the next court takes the bench? Also does such a complaint need to specify the law which is alleged to be broken, or does the Judge Advocate decide that?

Question for the court: if a compaint were raised against a citizen for infringing on someone else's basic rights, would such a complaint be handled prior to end of term, or after the next court takes the bench? Also does such a complaint need to specify the law which is alleged to be broken, or does the Judge Advocate decide that?

Mr. President,

All of the listed prodedures for a Citizen's Complaint and be found in the second post of this thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2050912&postcount=2) My apologies if that sounded a bit too administrative. In answer to your first question, unless a defendant were to plead guilty to a charge, a Citizen's Complaint processing would take at least 8 days, by law. If the defendant were to plead guilty immediately, the process would take a minimum of 5 days. This puts said process beyond the limits of the current Term, and therefore would be held over for the next Court. This would not mean that a CC could not be filed at this time, it just means it wouldn't be officially accepted for consideration until the next Term.

In regards to your second question, Section 8 of the Judicial Procedures (mentioned above) state that the Article or lower Law alledgedly violated would need to be stated in the charge. As this court also seeks to educate the general public in Judicial matters, if a citizen were not sure how to approach a CC properly, said citizen could PM the Chief Justice with the complaint (as stated in the above Judicial Procedures) and ask for assistance in filing the CC. The charge would then be posted in the appropriate list (post #3 of this thread) and communication between the Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate would begin the process.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/lines.gif

This Court is hereby closed. The Term 2 Judicial Thread will open later today. At this time I would personally like to thank Public Defender KCCrusader and Judge Advocate Immortal for their participation in the Judicial matters of Term 1. I would also like to thank the citizens of Japanatica for their involvement in these matters.

Hail Japanatica!

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/lines.gif

Term 2 Judicial thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=98573)