Term 1 Judiciary - the Areiopagos

[ravensfire]

Sorry for the delays in responding - works been overloading.

To business!

The changes suggested by both Black Hole and mhcarver are noted. Specifically, changing a sentence option from "Refer to Moderators" to "Suspension from Demogame". The Judicial Procedures will be posted.

The Areiopagos Court is now in session!

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[ravensfire]

Requests for Judicial Review

Bootstoots posted a request to review F.2 of the Code of Laws. Can 4 out of 2 Governors meets the 67% requirement in the law.

This request for Judicial Review is found to have Merit. The comment from Black Hole is noted.

Docketed as DG7JR1 Will a 4-2 vote by the Governors meet the 67% requirement?


Bootstoots posted a request to review F.2 of the Code of Laws. Can a super-majority of Governors over-rule a decision by the Assembly when determining if war should be declared. A possible conflict with the Constitution is noted.

The request for Judicial Review is found to have Merit.

Docketed as DG7JR2 Is the ability of the Governors to overrule the Assembly in CoL F.2 constitutional?

Daveshack posted a request to review the allocation of the DP duties to the Designated Player pool (CoL H.2, CoL L.1). Essentially, he's asking how are the DP duties handled - can the President allocated the duties as they desire, including playing all the saves, or must they use the pool.

This request for Judicial Review is found to have No Merit. The rules are clear - the Designated Players for each session come from the DP Pool exclusively. If the DP Pool is empty, the President can have any citizen serve as DP, but so long as there is one citizen in the pool, that is the source for the Designated Players.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[ravensfire]

Comment on DG7JR1:

I wrote this section, and the intent was for a 4-2 vote to be considered a super-majority. I'm dealing with so many rounding functions at work, that I just tossed in 67% (can't really put a 2/3 discount on a reciept, at least, we can't!). Rounding the 66.6666~ does give you 67%. Regardless of the decision, I would strongly suggest a CoL amendment to change it from 67% to 2/3 majority.

-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatikos

 

[ravensfire]

Citizen comment on DG7JR2:

I believe the Senate can overrule the assembly. First, during the discussion this exact scenario was brought up, and was strongly commented on. To paraphrase, it was commented that the Governors have the most direct impact from any conflict, given that most of them control only one city. Second, both the Assembly and the Senate are given the power to declare war in the Constitution. In the CoL, this is given more detail, including the ability for each side to overrule the other.

The Constitution is the framework, the Code of Laws is the structure built on that framework. I don't see a conflict here. It's a supermajority required by either side to overrule. That's a fairly strong check on the power of both sides.

-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatikos

 

[Black_Hole]

okay, my citizen comments on both JRs that have merit(note, these are not the official rulings, citizens may sway me)
1. Same as above, 2/3 does not equals 67%, a 4 - 2 will not count as 67%
2. This is a tricky one, unfortunatly the article containg the will of the people is in the constitution, meaning it ovverrides the CoL article on declarations of war... So basically The Senators cannot ovveride the public...

Both of these should be fixed by an amendment, heres how:
1. Change 67% to 2/3
2. Move the article on war declaration to the constitution

 

[ravensfire]

Whoops - I missed this one prior to posting the accepted procedures. This was from a comment by mhcarver.

Add to the Common duties section for the Judiciary

• Recuse themself from any Investigation that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the investigation, or as the citizen under investigation.

Black Hole, mhcarver - let me know if you see a problem with this. Changing procedures after initial acceptance requires unanimous approval. Sorry for missing this, mhcarver, it's a good catch that I dropped.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[Black_Hole]

I agree to the change

 

[mhcarver]

On my moms blackberry now so I'll be brief
Procedured: I approve the changes

1 4/6 is not 67 percent

2. as the Chief Justice(as a citizen) pointed out both the senate and the house of people are given the power to declare war. Because of this a supermajority should be able to override the others. I also would like to point out that it is not against the WOTP for the senate to ovveride the house because the people are the ones who chose the senate, not the other way around.

 

[Nobody]

Greeting Judges,
I would like to file a judical review. The governors get to name citys, and most governors have already named citys. Even though they havent been bulit. The code of law says

Section E.1 City Placement and Naming
Discussions on city placement and names will be lead by the Governor of that city.

But what if this term ends with all five cities being bulit. Who names the city the first Governor or the current (new) governor?

 

[Bootstoots]

It seems that the Judiciary has been rather quiet for the past 2 1/2 days. Are rulings on JR's 1 and 2 in the works?

 

[Chieftess]

It seems that the Judiciary has been rather quiet for the past 2 1/2 days.

Now there's a rarity.

 

[Black_Hole]

It seems that the Judiciary has been rather quiet for the past 2 1/2 days. Are rulings on JR's 1 and 2 in the works?

well I was hoping for comments from citizens, but since there are none, below is my official ruling:

JR # 1:
A 4-2 vote in the senate does not constitute the 67% required to declare war

JR# 2:
The senate does not have the power to ovveride the citizen(but NOT vice versa), this is because the article giving senators power to do so is in the CoL, which is overuled by the WOTP article in the Constitution

These should both be fixed IMO...

 

[ravensfire]

It seems that the Judiciary has been rather quiet for the past 2 1/2 days. Are rulings on JR's 1 and 2 in the works?

With the lack of urgency on those two JR's, I'm waiting for mhcarver to post a rule ruling. I'm pretty much gotten mine typed up, and mostly have the final rulings ready, assuming things stand as they are.

Sorry for the lack of posting - I'm here.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[ravensfire]

Request for Judicial Review

Nobody posted a request to review E.1 of the Code of Laws. If a city is not built in the term where a discussion on naming that city is held, does the first Governor or the Governor of the city during the term the city was built name the city?

This request for Judicial Review is found to have merit.

Docketed as DG7JR3 Who names the a city - the first Governor or the Governor when the city is founded?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[ravensfire]

I agree to the change

With all justices agreeing to the change, the procedures have been updated.

Justices are now required to recuse themself if they request an investigation or have an investigation concerning them be requested.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[greekguy]

Greetings Judiciary! I would like to follow a Judicial Review. Governor DaveShack has been giving orders for the worker. However the constitution says something contrary to this:

The President is responsible for control of the slider, worker allocation and resolving disputes between leaders, such as over use of gold. The President is also responsible for all tasks not assigned to another leader.

Each Governor is responsible for the care, management, and use of cities they control.

As you can see above, the Constitution gives controlling workers to the president, not the governor.

And these are Governor DaveShack's instructions for the next Turnchat:

Worker Actions:

Complete mine (4 turns)
Road current location (3 turns)
Move E to wines (1 turn)
Road wines (3 turns)
Irrigate wines (4 turns)

Production
Warrior (2 turns), Settler (15 but will be less), Warrior, Settler. If this weren't 5CC then after the 1st settler would be a granary and we would have a 4-turn settler pump.

MM
Adjust MM as needed to minimize overruns. Preference for controlling hapieness is wines , MP, lux slider, taxmen, entertainers.

So shouldn't Octavian_X be posting instructions for the worker and all future workers?

 

[ravensfire]

Request for Judicial Review

greekguy posted a request to review Article E and F of the Constitution with respect to worker tasks.

This request for Judicial Review is found to have merit.

Docketed as DG7JR4 Who controls the actions of workers?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[ravensfire]

Citizen's comment on DG7JR3 Who names the a city - the first Governor or the Governor when the city is founded?

I think it's the Governor when the city is founded. The Governor is given the power to name the city, meaning they have to post that as an instruction in the TCIT. Only current, elected officials can post (or at least, should) post in that thread, giving direction to the DP.

I'd love to see all 5 founded this term, but if that doesn't happen, the governor at the time the city is founded should have the power to name the city.

-- Ravensfire, Citizen

 

[DaveShack]

Citizen comment on DG7JR4.

The constitution says the President is responsible for allocation of workers, not use of or instructions for. The specific worker actions fall under care and management of.

If we had two cities, then it would be correct to point out that neither governor has the right to give worker orders unless / until the President allocates a worker to one of them.

 

[DaveShack]

Citizen comment on DG7JR3

It makes the most sense to give naming rights to the governor at the time the city is founded. This is especially true because we might not know the surrounding territory in advance. If the 1st term governors don't have their cities built and they still want to name them, they are welcome to run for re-election in term 2.