Term 2 Judicial Thread ~

A special note here to Judge Advocate Octavian X. When and if you post Opinions for our JRs, please post individual Opinions. Posting two or more Opinions together makes documentation difficult. Also, please refrain from posting the "I agree" Opinions. Explanations of your rulings are sought by other members of the Court, as well as the public. Thank you,

CJ Cyc

Ravensfire has requested a Judicial Review on matters dealing with Article N of the Constitution. The basic questions ask about allowances granted by the Article. This request has been accepted and has been listed in post #4 of this thread as DG5JR18.

This Court welcomes any citizen input on the two questions asked by Ravensfire.

DG5JR18

This JR reminds me of standing on a cold and windy mountaintop, skies strapped on, poles in hand. As I look down the long and slippery slope, I figure I’ll get to the bottom of it eventually. It may be a quick trip or it may hurt, but let’s push off and see what happens…

Let’s look at Article N first. It starts out saying that “provided by Article A…all actions…are presumed to be within the right of every citizen”. Article A does not provide this. Article A defines a citizen of Japanatica and lists common rights granted all citizens. There are not a lot of avenues possible for one to take in the way of actions with only a keyboard in a Forum-based game. But those listed in Article A are certainly within those options. Then Article N goes on to say “Actions prescribed by this Constitution (Article A and others) may be substituted by similar actions provided it lies within the spirit of the rules.

So we know Article N is using Article A as the basis for citizen rights and explains in a vague manner that citizens rights go beyond the confines of the Constitution. After reading the initial proposal for Article N, Bill_in_PDX stated, ” I love the concept, and the idea is something very important to keep in mind during the game. In practice, I think this clause alone will be good for 40 or so PI/CC's during the game. It basically opens the window for every internet lawyer around to jam up the demo game.” Which could be true, but judging from the amount of CCs we’ve had this game, could be wrong. Article N does open a Pandora’s box in a sense that it is too open ended, but having been around when the law was being written, I remember how it was well liked, as it allows for a “less restrictive game” for some players. It allows those players not to be confined or restricted by minute details within our ruleset, but it opens up the situation raised by Bill_in_PDX above. When I read the initial proposal, I posted, ” I basically agree with this Article. Unfortunately, it would require a restrictive Constitution, which you people had and refused to read. Basically, if the rules written do not cover an action, it is not illegal. If there is anything in the rules that forbid an action, it is illegal. It's that easy.” In essance I was agreeing with Bill, while suggesting a means of keeping the reins on the peoples actions. Ravensfire’s comment on the piece was, ” Clear and straightforward statement of the idea. The second sentance is both vague and redundant, so scrap it. By stating this as "forum rules, or by the laws of COUNTRY_NAME", it covers all laws/ruling/etc that we might come up with. After all, the Constitution is also a law.” I was all for his rewording of the Article, but it was never changed. It would have precluded Judicial Review here and at least one other instance. So this paragraph defines Article N for me, let’s move on to Naming Rights of a Governor.

Ravensfire is correct, Naming Rights are not specifically mentioned in our ruleset. Because they are not, does this mean that naming actions are within the rights of every citizen? I think not. What do I base this on? Common Law and the wording of other Articles in the Constitution. Common Law in Demogames dictates that one of the perks for registering as a citizen is the right to name a city. That’s a well known fact. Is it written in the ruleset yet? No. Will I, as Chief Justice, uphold a citizens right to name a city if they register properly? Yes, I will. So there’s an example of Common Law in Naming Rights. In the first Demogame, it was written in the ruleset that “The first elected Governor would name the Province”. In the second DG, that rule was relaxed and written as “The first Governor shall name the Province.” Why the change? It was noted that the approval of borders were not consistant with the elections. Sometimes borders would be approved at the begining of the month, a Governor appointed, and that person would work the reminder of the month. Should that appointed Governor be denied naming the Province they founded and developed for the nation? No they should not be denied, thus the rule change. In our last Demogame, the Code of Standards in our “Three Books” opened it’s rule on Naming Rights with:

DG4 CoS Section H. Naming Rights
1. The first Governor for a province shall name that
province.
So by merely carrying over the ruleset from last game, that question is answered in a Common Law way.

And finally, we have to look at the wordings of other Articles in our ruleset, and how they effect Article N. This has to do with the responsibilities portion of the JR more than the actions portion. Ravensfire brings up Article D.1 (responsible for all domestic initiatives...).

Let’s look at the word initiative. 1. plan: a plan or strategy designed to deal with a particular problem. 2. POLITICS - proposal of legislation by citizens: a process valid in many U.S. states and in Switzerland that allows citizens to propose legislation by petition.

Both of these definitions fit in our description of “responsibilities” assigned to the Domestic Minister. Responsibility of setting up a nation plan for our lands, to include Provincial borders, and the responsibility of polling (petitioning) national Domestic matters. When I look at these definitions in regard to Article D, I don’t see naming of an individual Province as a responsibility. Ravensfire also brings up two sections from Article E, which I believe do hold weight in this matter. “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.” Right there the Constitution calls the Provinces “their individual Provinces”. Like a child or a posession, one should be able to name it. The name of a Province is definitely a concern for everyone, and the Governor may want to select a name for the Province that envelopes the vision he or she has for the Province. In the B section of Article E, where it states specific duties and responsibilities of a Governor, it says “Governors are responsible for the care of a Province”. I can also see choosing the name of a Province as caring for one of it’s basic needs. And Article O states: ” 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.” It backs up Article E in claiming the Governor controls the Province.

When you put all this together and step back, you see that the Constitution is telling us that a Governor controls a Province. A Governor is responsible for it’s care and is tasked with keeping the citizens informed of it progress and activities in the nation’s history. The Governor is responsible for the Province. Common Law tells us that the first Governor names that Province with it’s permenant name.

Taking all of this into consideration, my Opinion below answers both of Ravensfire’s questions:

Chief Justice Opinion: 1. No, Article N grants rights to to citizens in the form of actions not forbidden by Forum rules or our own ruleset. It does not ALSO include granting responsibilities of any kind to the People as a whole. There is a major difference between having the right to perform an action and having the ultimate responsibility for that action. As an example, any citizen may claim the Law, as seen in the thread that inititiated this JR, but only the Court holds responsibility for upholding our ruleset.

2. No, Article N does not soley grant any single right to the People. It is an open ended Law that grants freedom to do things not forbidden by others laws, with an entire ocean of possibilities. But, to get to the meat of your question, again no. The responsibility of naming a Province has been shown to be that of the first Governor. Common Law tells us each citizen names a city in due time by the matter of their registration. So Article N does not cover this area, nor does Article D.1 cover a Domestic Minister’s alledged right to name Provinces.

Is the Judiciary going declare The Military Minister position Vacant? Provolution has not posted any instructions for at least 2 turn chats.

Civanator said:

Is the Judiciary going declare The Military Minister position Vacant? Provolution has not posted any instructions for at least 2 turn chats.

Click to expand...

We can most certainly do that for you, Deputy Minister Civanator. I, personally, was under the impression that both you and Provolution had worked out some kind of agreement, similar to the one you mentioned when you posted Instructions on the 5th of the month. I'm glad you came forth to alert us of this situation.

This Court hereby finds Minister Provolution absent from his position. Provolution has not posted Instructions once during this Term, relying on his Deputy Minister to fulfill his responsibilities. Provolution has also neglected other duties, such as initiating discussion and posting polls.

This Court hereby calls on the President to elevate Deputy Minister Civanator to the position of Minister for the Ministry of War.

DG5JR17

Again, my lines of thinking run along common sense. To put it frankly, we can save ourselves a lot of time by just accepting that yes, a person is allowed to post valid instructions during the confirmation period. An appointee is chosen to fill the vacant job so as to minimize any pains that may or may not be suffered during this switch.

And, yes, the wording of the article, if one wishes to dive deeply into the details, mentions that confirmation polls exist to 'overturn' appointments, reasonably inferring that the appointment took place beforehand.

To directly answer the questions: Yes, Apointees under Confirmation are allowed to write instruction threads for any Turnchats during the "Confirmation Period."

The second question need not be answered at this time.

DG5JR18

This is a very interesting question indeed. I will first suggest that, after any rulings this Court makes, that this subject be brougt up again in the Citizen's Forum.

It is quite clear to me that the specific issue of provincial and city naming is not mentioned anywhere, at all, in our present ruleset. No question about it. From my point of view, this is OK. Personally speaking, I don't like a rigid ruleset. This was the original intent of the constitution, as indicated by the open-ended nature of Article N.

Article N clearly states that "...all actions not forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to be within the right of every citizen." Perhaps my own thinking is flawed, but I've always had the idea that with rights, come responsibilities. For example, we are given the right to vote. It is implied that, with this right to vote, comes the responsibility of voting intelligently (for example, the difference between voting to elect a candidate you like, agree with, and trust, versus voting for a houseplant). I exted this concept to assume that the article does indeed imply that the People are granted rights, as well as responsibilities, not specifically forbidden or given to someone else.

The matter of city and provincial naming follows along this path of thinking. Chie Justice Cyc has demonstarted that Common Law, Domestic Initiatives, the responsibilities of Governors, and so and so forth, provide for the right of Governors to name provinces and the Domestic Office to look after the naming of cities. Governors, defined as Provincial caretakers, it seems clear to me, are given this right to name provinces, and common law provides for the right of a first governor to name a province. Again, common law provides also for the right of the People to name cities via the registry list. Using holdover law, of course, is something I hate doing.

I will, however, disagree with the Chief Justice's reasoning. I remember nothing in the old laws that states that said names are permanent. I think it is reasonably implied that governors, again under the reasoning that they are caretakers of the province, may name a province any name they so wish, giving later governors the flexibility to change. The same holds true for city names - they are indeed changable. Governors and Domestic Ministers, of course, as elected officials, must plan and act according to the will of the people, as is our charished tradition and law (Article J). Thus, if it can be demonstrated that the will of the people is to rename a province or city, the renaming must be done.

To summarize:
Yes, Article N does grant unto the People all rights and responsiblities not forbidden to them and not granted to specified leader. Responsibility, though not mentioned specifically, is implied as part of a Right. As the U.S. Bill of Rights grants the freedom of speech, it is implied that one will use this freedom responsibly.

Yes, Article N does grant unto the People the right to name Provinces and Cities. Article N does this, in conjunction with Article E (“Governors are responsible for the care of a Province&#8221, Article D ("The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be responsible for all domestic initiatives..."), and Article J ("Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.")

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

One other note: it appears the forum, in attempted to be nice, is combinding my once seperate posts for each review. My apoligies, but none of you post when I do.

Considering naming issue I think we should follow tradition and let governors name their provinces. The name doesn't have to be permament but if the names are going to be changed than a poll should be made. I don't see why would each governor have the power to change the province and city name at any time. (That would be like i decide right now i want to name 4 cities in my province AO, BO, CO, DO just because i can do it).
If governor, mayor or any citizen wants to change province, city or even country name than all Japanatican citizens should have right to vote and express their opinion.

i will post a response to the lates JR tommorow night. sorry, time constraints

DG5JR18 Submitted by:ravensfire

As far as the first question is concerned, I may be misinterpreting what you are asking. My simple answer is yes. Article N does indeed grant any powers not granted to any specific leader to the people. But you must also consider the vague language used in assigning responsibilities. Because of the encompassing language in some articles (the executive branch article specifically), the "all actions" clause really grants less than it seems.

Question 2: The right to name cities is left to the people. On my last check (Haven't looked at the save for last 2 TC's) The names come from a list compiled by the citizens in order of registration. Although it is not specifically described that that is to be the only method of naming cities, there has not been strong opposition to the system, therefore it works to get the citizens' city names on the map.

As far as provinces go, Article E does not specifically grant the right to name the province to the governor. However, the general language in the article suggests that governors have a sort fo "supreme control" over the province. In this since the governor may name his province what ever he pleases. Ofcourse, if a mass of the people dislike the name, they can invoke their WOTP power (Article J) In this way, the people do retain control over the province name. With the people retaining the power of the recall vote, elected officials shall be inclined to listen to the people...

Opinion on Question 1: Yes, Article N does grant all non-listed powers to the people.
Opinion on Question 2: The naming of cities is reserved for the people, and the current system (based on my last check) satisfies this method. Naming provinces is reserved by the governor of the province due to the "supreme control" language in article E, but it is in their best interest to find out the people's choice first.

In the countless millennium I have been involved with the Justice system for our Demogames, two words keep surfacing that I have grown quite fond of. I get to use both of those words in this “Interim Majority Opinion/Call for Clarification” post. Those words are quagmire and convoluted. The quagmire we find ourselves in with this Judicial Review is mainly caused by the fact that we started DGV before our ruleset was complete. Because of this, there are not a lot of hard answers to fall back on for the Judicial Branch. We cast our nets out into this sea of few words to see if we can glean the sustenance needed to make a decision. This scenario is brought to a pitch when a question as convoluted as either of those asked by Ravensfire in DG5JR18 is asked. In reference to Article N of the Constitution, shown below:
Ravensfire asks the following questions:
1. Does Article N grant unto the People all rights and responsiblities not forbidden to them and not granted to specified leader?
and
2. Does Article N soley grant unto the People the right to name Provinces and Cities, or does that right lie with the Domestic Minister, under Article D.1 (resonsible for all domestic initiatives...)

Thus far, in answering these questions in the form of legal Opinions, the members of the Judicial Branch have post different answers the mean basically the same thing, while trying to hold true to reasonings that differ in context. Because of the complex nature of the questions, with their vague (if not misleading wording) and the lack of definitive laws in our ruleset, this JR can be paralleled with the argument of “which came first? The chicken or the egg?”

Here are the answers to question 1:

Chief Justice: No, Article N grants rights to to citizens in the form of actions not forbidden by Forum rules our our own ruleset. It does not ALSO include granting responsibilities of any kind to the People as a whole. There is a major difference between having the right to perform an action and having the ultimate responsibility for that action. As an example, any citizen may claim the Law, as seen in the thread that inititiated this JR, but only the Court holds responsibility for upholding our ruleset.

Judge Advocate: Yes, Article N does grant unto the People all rights and responsiblities not forbidden to them and not granted to specified leader. Responsibility, though not mentioned specifically, is implied as part of a Right. As the U.S. Bill of Rights grants the freedom of speech, it is implied that one will use this freedom responsibly.

Public Defender: : Yes, Article N does grant all non-listed powers to the people.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Right away, I see a problem with the definition of the words people/citizens, responsibilities, and powers. In Article N, the word citizen (or people as two of the Justices prefer to use) means everyone in the Demogame legally registered. It does not single out any one person or Office. Ravensfire specifically stated that this JR was initiated by the naming of the Provinces discussion, it could be inferred by the Judge Advocate’s and Public Defender’s answer that all citizens had the right to name Provinces, whether they were a Governor or not. Currently, that would mean about 20 or so citizens could submit a name for a Province, and none of them would have priority. Polling wouldn’t work, as the results of the poll would nullify the Constitutional rights of the other 19 or so citizens. So I believe in context to the question asked and the Law referenced, the intent of Ravensfire may have proven to be misleading to my colleagues. As Article N grants the rights to the “citizens”, the discussion was about Governors and their specific Office. As the privilege of naming a Province is not specifically authorized to a Governor in the Constitution, then according to the JA and PD Opinion, ALL citizens have that right. Not a good situation.

Responsibilities is the next word. Our JA uses the word in context of a standard of acting or participating in an activity. What he’s saying is that responsibility means the way a young man might drive a car. Does he obey the speed limit? Does he sit at stop signs eyeing the pedestrians that pass in front of his car with the gleam of Charles Manson? I’m sorry, but this is not consistent with the intent of the Constitution. The Constitution defines what a citizen is and gives certain citizens authority in areas granted by their position. The Constitution does NOT dwell on whether you’re a crappy citizen or an outstanding citizen. Just that you are a citizen, some with more authority. Therefore, in the analogy of the young driver, the Constitution does not dictate how well the young man drives (or even what well means) in it’s use of the word responsible, it states who’s responsible for the monetary damages if that young man gets into an accident. So, it’s not the act of driving responsibly, it’s who’s responsible for the damages. Two different things. Responsibility = Accountability.

The last word is powers. Powers isn’t used anywhere in the Request for Judicial Review or the Laws referenced. Powers, because there is no definition stated, is kind of a “loose cannon” word that comes closer to the Constitution’s meaning of responsibility than the actions granted by Article N. So this word is not really appropriate in the PD’s one sentence answer.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here are the answers to question #2:

Chief Justice: No, Article N does not solely grant any single right to the People. It is an open ended Law that grants freedom to do things not forbidden by others laws, with an entire ocean of possibilities. But, to get to the meat of your question, again no. The responsibility of naming a Province has been shown to be that of the first Governor. Common Law tells us each citizen names a city in due time by the matter of their registration. So Article N does not cover this area, nor does Article D.1 cover the Domestic Minister’s right to name Provinces.

Judge Advocate: Yes, Article N does grant unto the People the right to name Provinces and Cities. Article N does this, in conjunction with Article E (“Governors are responsible for the care of a Province&#8221 , Article D ("The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be responsible for all domestic initiatives..."), and Article J ("Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.")

Public Defender: The naming of cities is reserved for the people, and the current system (based on my last check) satisfies this method. Naming provinces is reserved by the governor of the province due to the "supreme control" language in article E, but it is in their best interest to find out the people's choice first.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If the right to name a Province has been stated in the wording of other Articles, then this “action” is not covered by Article N. Because the naming of cities is not listed in or implied in any other law, that action is a right of every citizen, according to Article N. Another quagmire, as every citizen has the right to name every city. I don’t understand the JA’s use of #8221 or Article D in conjunction with Article N and E and J. And if, as the JA states, the right to name Provinces is granted to the People, then Governors are out of the picture altogether. This problem is understandable, as the question did not include Governors and only asked about the People as opposed to the Domestic Minister. Thus, the “misleading” portion of the question. This seems to have confounded the PD so well that he chose to give an Opinion empty of any legal reasoning for cities, and the Provinces portion of his answer appears to be a NO, although this contradicts the cities portion of the answer, in that no legal basis is stated to justify the citizens naming the cities. It’s a never ending cycle. This is why I believe the answer to both questions is a NO.

Therefore, I ask for a reconsideration of the terminology used in these Opinions as well as the questions themselves. I believe we’ve all come up with the same answers in essence, but the wording used make a Majority Opinion seem embattled. Let’s try to get this thing wrapped up before the end of the Term. Ravensfire is also welcome to clarify, if he so wishes.

I am formally filing a CC against Chieftess.

Chieftess illegally went against the deputy governor of zarnia's instructions:

Great Lighthouse Pre-build (If the above poll changes before the chat, change this to a colosseum (Mayor Cyc's preference))

Click to expand...

In Governor Zarn's absence, I am posting the queues. For reference, here is the pre-build poll, which shows Zojoji gaining support to build a wonder (as of this post).

Click to expand...

Fanatikku
Colosseum (Will waste 29 shields)

Click to expand...

(TC Post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2212978&postcount=10)
As you can see in the poll regarding prebuilds:

As of now, it's a 6-6 tie. Turnchat time.

Click to expand...

(Poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=100705)
The only way she could have gve against this, was if snipelfritz(who was present at the chat) broke the tie, and she did not give him the oppurtunity to do that.
She even went against RegentMan'sinstructions in Fantikku to build a colloseum, and instead built a swordsmen.

Save: http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/DG5_AD310_fued.SAV
TC Log: http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/DG5_sep26.zip
She has broken article D of the Constituion:

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.....

Click to expand...

From chat log:

[13:01] <+SaaMSAT> whats the prebuild poll result?
[13:02] <!Chieftess> It's tied!
[13:02] <+SaaMSAT> grr
[13:02] <!Chieftess> 6-6
[13:02] <+SaaMSAT> who gets to decide (if its you, i know how it
goes)
[13:02] <!Chieftess> And I've voting we need swords instead of a
giant spotlight
[13:02] * @RikMeleet is now Playing:4 Queen & David Bowie -
Pressure
[13:02] <!Chieftess> *yeah! Let's blind our enemies with a huge
spotlight!*
[13:03] <+Furiey> or put them under pressure with swords instead
[13:03] <@RikMeleet> I broke the tie ....
[13:03] <!Chieftess> yay!
[13:03] <@RikMeleet> CT: Tie is briken
[13:03] <@RikMeleet> ok
[13:03] <!Chieftess> ok, on with the first queue
[13:04] <+SaaMSAT> whats the vote now? (need i ask?)
[13:05] <+Furiey> poll's still open?
[13:05] <@RikMeleet> Free the slaves ! oh, I mean: Stop the
prebuilds !
[13:05] <@RikMeleet> poll is open

Click to expand...

<+Civanator> prebuild poll is now 8-6 in favor of
stopping both prebuilds

Click to expand...

Just incase here are the images:





I would like to thank the court for its time in this matter.

May it Please the Court!

As a side issue, which has nothing to do with any possible CCs, I am requesting a Judicial Review on this question:

Who is in control of a Naval Transport containing a Settler?

Is it the War Minister, who "shall be responsible for all military strategy and troop activities"

Or is it the Domestic Minister, who is in charge of all "Domestic Initatives".

Or is it someone else entirely? Or does it depend on the conditions?


I have these to offer as precedent: Over the past 2 terms, all Settlers going on Land have been directed by polls initiated by the Domestic Minister, as per Article O.

However, in said period, Exploration was handled by the War Minister. And going out to unexplored areas, even with a Settler aboard, might be considered Exploration.

Links to Relevant Threads:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96850

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=99315

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95589

And, of course...

If the Justices may find time to take up this matter soon, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

Maybe if we just worked together when there is a settler in the galley. I'm willing to, it's really not that hard .

Umm.... BH, Fanatikku has a colosseum so i don't know why you're filing a CC... Make sure you have all of your facts straight before filing a CC, or you just embarass yourself...

Civanator said:

Maybe if we just worked together when there is a settler in the galley. I'm willing to, it's really not that hard .

Umm.... BH, Fanatikku has a colosseum so i don't know why you're filing a CC... Make sure you have all of your facts straight before filing a CC, or you just embarass yourself...

Click to expand...

Not to mention actually looking at the correct save...

Minister Black_Hole, as a citizen has filed a Citizen's Complaint against President Cheiftess for violating Article D of the Constitution. This CC has been accepted and listed in post #5 of this thread as DG5CC1.

We will now move forward with this action.

And I don't know why everyone still thinks I voted just then when I said I didn't. :/

Chieftess said:

And I don't know why everyone still thinks I voted just then when I said I didn't. :/

Click to expand...

Thank you for your input, CT.

As a Citizen's Complaint has been filed on the matters mentioned above, the Chief Justice requests that no further discussion take place about this matter in this thread. There will be a new Citizen's Complaint thread posted if this moves to the Trial phase. You may speak your mind then. Moderators please delete any further discussions about this. Thank you,

CJ Cyc

Testing. I can't seem to post in my own thread.

This is totally unfair. I have been denied the right to post in my own thread. Another travesty of Justice.

Nothing to see here.....just testing the acoustics of the courtroom.......

EDIT: Works fine for me, Your Honor. care to try again?

As the defendant (accused) is already aware of the filing of a Citizen's Complaint against her, I am removing that step in this Court's CC Procedure. If the Judge Advocate pleases, in a speedy fashion, PM Chieftess about the CC explaning her rights, and then post here stating that fact. But this step in the procedure has been removed from the chronological order of steps to be taken.

CJ Cyc

Cyc, I think that earlier this day there was some glitch that could not let anybody post in their own topics (not even me), and it was edited onto the end of the previous topic.

It's been fixed now, I think.