Term 1 - Judicial Thread

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. 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.
 
Comnenus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

 
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 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:

Code: 
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)
 
Donovan Zoi said:
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 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
Click to expand...

Honorable Donovan Zoi,
Excellent work on your Proposed Poll. A fine example for great Legislation. I have posted your request as DG5JR6 and will proceed with the review.
 
Comnenus, your request for a Judicial Review concerning our Legislative Branch has been recorded as DG5JR7, and we will proceed with the Review.
 
DG5JR6 Requested by: Donovan Zoi
Regarding Proposed Amendment to Article I

Proposed Legislation:
Donovan Zoi said:
Code: 
[b]Article I - Amended[/b] [i]Changes in boldface[/i]
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.  [b]A 67% majority of Yes votes over No votes, Abstain 
                     notwithstanding.[/b]
                c.  [b]A total number of votes[/b] 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.[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...
 
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.

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 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


Code: 
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 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 .
 
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
 
ravensfire said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lexicus
  • Locked
Gaza Genocide News Thread
Replies
2
Views
302
lymond
lymond
amadeus
The Boring Thread
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
2K
Crezth
Crezth
BlueTemplar
[Culture] Aka ("Pygmy")
Replies
11
Views
579
Thunderbrd
Thunderbrd
kcd_swede
[BTS] News: BOTM 264 - Taylor Swift, Monarch - First Spoiler to 1 AD
Replies
14
Views
881
DynamicSpirit
DynamicSpirit
V
  • Sticky
TSG 244 After Actions Thread
Replies
15
Views
771
BuilderFTW
B
Top Bottom