Term 1 - Judicial Thread

Comnenus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Cyc said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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.

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

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:


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

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


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

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.

Click to expand...

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).


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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.