Term 1 - Judicial Thread

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

DaveShack said:

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...

Click to expand...

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

ravensfire said:

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

Click to expand...

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:


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?

Click to expand...

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.

CivGeneral said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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:

Law Proposal 1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

A discussion on Law 1 as initially presented by Epimethius has been started here. 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...

[roleplay]
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. 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!
[/roleplay]

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.

Thank you cyc

Immortal said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

donsig said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with you donsig. In post #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.