Term 3 Judiciary

Black_Hole · Oct 27, 2004

Strider said:
I've known the court precedures have been here all game, I actually suggested a few changes to them. However, that does change anything. They are still illegal, and incase you didn't notice I hate Donovan_Zoi with a passion, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual. However, I was willing to let it drop, he was not. If it's a fight he wants, then I will no longer sit back and let him beat on me. I'm simply taking the fight to him, as he's been doing to me most of this game.

As I pointed out, the Judiciary just ruled that if it is not in the Constitution, then it is illegal. I pointed out that there "Judicial Precedures" are not inside of the Constitution, and as such illegal. That is problem that should've been solved during the creation. It's not my problem that the people who made it, completely ****ed it up.

The Citizen Complaint process, however, is not listed inside of the Constitution.

I have no problem with the Judicial Precedures, however, I do have a problem with the Judiciary declaring that one thing is right for them, yet the same thing is wrong for someone else.

the CC process is in the constitution, first off it is referened who does what in a cc in article F, also article a:

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.

the right ot seek to redres grievenances is basically a CC, but you can call it what ever you want

Strider · Oct 27, 2004

Black_Hole said:
the right ot seek to redres grievenances is basically a CC, but you can call it what ever you want

With that logic, you can also say that elections are also mentioned inside of the constitution.

Your point of posting this was what?

mhcarver · Oct 27, 2004

because were all irritated at one another and I have a feeling this may get ugly(er)
-goodnight

Black_Hole · Oct 27, 2004

Strider said:
With that logic, you can also say that elections are also mentioned inside of the constitution.

Your point of posting this was what?

yep they are, with that logic you can prove in the constitution that elections must happen...
how else can people seek justice because of grievances?

blackheart · Oct 27, 2004

Strider, what are you doing? First you file for a judicial review, it fails, then you say what the judiciary did was illegal? :confused:

How do you even uphold the constitution without interpreting it, since some parts are vague? Since you consider judicial reviews and CCs illegal, there's nothing you can do about it without lobbying for a new law, which of course requires judicial review to see that it doesn't conflict with an existing law, which of course you deem that these reviews are illegal, so therefore, you cannot change the laws.

Strider · Oct 27, 2004

Black_Hole said:
yep they are, with that logic you can prove in the constitution that elections must happen...
how else can people seek justice because of grievances?

There are many ways, the game can be turned back and the "grievance" fixed. Citizen Complaints are just the most direct approach, and the one that causes the most diffusion inside of the game. Overall, it's a bad system. I honor Ravensfire for his attempt to make Citizen Complaints less dividing, but I think the best way would be to throw the system away completely and handle it differantly.

Strider · Oct 27, 2004

blackheart said:
Strider, what are you doing? First you file for a judicial review, it fails, then you say what the judiciary did was illegal?

How do you even uphold the constitution without interpreting it, since some parts are vague? Since you consider judicial reviews and CCs illegal, there's nothing you can do about it without lobbying for a new law, which of course requires judicial review to see that it doesn't conflict with an existing law, which of course you deem that these reviews are illegal, so therefore, you cannot change the laws.

Actually, no, the Judicial is impowered with the power to check if a proposed amendment conflicts with an existing law.

Also, incase you didn't get it, I filed the Judicial Review expecting it to be declared to have no merit.

Black_Hole · Oct 27, 2004

Strider said:
He ruling stated "there is nothing in the constitution about the election cycle." I pointed out that there is also nothing in the constitution about the Judicial Cycle. As such, he ruled that sense it is not inside of the constitution, it is illegal. I merely pointed out, that his power over ruling, is not inside of the constitution, and as such, is also illegal.

you have blown it out of context and used the ruling for matters not related to it
article H says that they have the right to be in an election unless they have accepted elsewhere, there is no law in the constitution that stops the judical cycle while article H clearly gives citizens the right to an election poll spot, but no law that contradicts the judicial cycle

Strider · Oct 27, 2004

Black_Hole said:
you have blown it out of context and used the ruling for matters not related to it article H says that they have the right to be in an election unless they have accepted elsewhere, there is no law in the constitution that stops the judical cycle while article H clearly gives citizens the right to an election poll spot, but no law that contradicts the judicial cycle

So, by your reasoning, a person may accept a nomination after the election has started and still must be included in the election?

Your reasoning is not that good.

Black_Hole · Oct 27, 2004

Strider said:
So, by your reasoning, a person may accept a nomination after the election has started and still must be included in the election?

Your reasoning is not that good.

you know what I mean, I was in a hurry let me explain:

Article H.
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Vice-President, Department Leader,
Judiciary, Provincial Governor, Deputy) simultaneously,
nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
commencement of the general election.

DZ definetly was in time, because it was b4 cg posted the election poll, its nice how you are chaning topics away from the judical stuff back to the elections

Strider · Oct 27, 2004

Black_Hole said:
DZ definetly was in time, because it was b4 cg posted the election poll, its nice how you are chaning topics away from the judical stuff back to the elections

You still haven't gotten my point? The Election Precedures has always been that ALL nomination threads close at one time, and acceptances passed after this time do not count. The Chief Justice however, said that the Election Procedures are not inside of the constitution, and are against our laws.

To use as a counter-example, I pointed out that with this reasoning, the Judicial Review and CC process are also not in the constitution, and as such, also against our laws.

If we had followed the Election Procedures, Donovan_Zoi was late with his acceptance.

KCCrusader · Oct 27, 2004

Ruling on DG5JR25

shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
commencement of the general election.

This line is quoted in the Review and is one of the only references to elections in the constitution. This line suggests that Nominations may be accepted until the election starts. In this case, the election did not start until after Donovan Zoi accepted the nomination. By this clause Donovan Zoi shall be allowed to be on the ballot.

I'm glad this is already taken care of

Black_Hole · Oct 27, 2004

Strider said:
You still haven't gotten my point? The Election Precedures has always been that ALL nomination threads close at one time, and acceptances passed after this time do not count. The Chief Justice however, said that the Election Procedures are not inside of the constitution, and are against our laws.

To use as a counter-example, I pointed out that with this reasoning, the Judicial Review and CC process are also not in the constitution, and as such, also against our laws.

If we had followed the Election Procedures, Donovan_Zoi was late with his acceptance.

you still havent got my point:
article h allows somoene to accept their nomination for election until the election starts, the constitution is higher than both precedures(election and judicial) thus it is legal, the so called "election procedures" cant break the constituion neither can the judicial procedures. but the judical procedures arent breaking the constitution

KCCrusader · Oct 27, 2004

Strider: Your arguments in the Judicial Thread are not constructive. Instead of pessimistically criticizing our procedure, why not try to change it in the citizens forum? So far the court's actions have been accepted for three terms. If the citizen's had a problem with the legality why is this just now being dealt with.

Do not argue for the sake of arguing. Argue to change something. I'm glad you think the court's procedures are illegal. It shows you are one step ahead of everyone else. If you think it's best to more clearly define our role in the constitution, take it to the citizen's thread, which may end in a final result you like. That would be more prudent than to simply attack the judicial thread for the ruling, which in the end will have no affect on this game at all.

Until then, no judicial reviews (ILLEGAL! :lol:

) of the legality of our powers has been presented so I am finished.

Strider · Oct 27, 2004

Black_Hole said:
you still havent got my point:
article h allows somoene to accept their nomination for election until the election starts, the constitution is higher than both precedures(election and judicial) thus it is legal, the so called "election procedures" cant break the constituion neither can the judicial procedures. but the judical procedures arent breaking the constitution

Article H actually agrees with me.

Article H said:
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President, Vice-President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor, Deputy) simultaneously, nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the commencement of the general election.

The general election? That pretty much means the whole election, EVERY election. Not just Foreign Affairs.

Strider · Oct 27, 2004

KCCrusader said:
Strider: Your arguments in the Judicial Thread are not constructive. Instead of pessimistically criticizing our procedure, why not try to change it in the citizens forum? So far the court's actions have been accepted for three terms. If the citizen's had a problem with the legality why is this just now being dealt with.

Do not argue for the sake of arguing. Argue to change something. I'm glad you think the court's procedures are illegal. It shows you are one step ahead of everyone else. If you think it's best to more clearly define our role in the constitution, take it to the citizen's thread, which may end in a final result you like. That would be more prudent than to simply attack the judicial thread for the ruling, which in the end will have no affect on this game at all.

Until then, no judicial reviews (ILLEGAL! ) of the legality of our powers has been presented so I am finished.

A thread in the Citizens forum of this has been up for several hours.

gert-janl · Oct 28, 2004

Wow, a CJ lies himself to rest here in Western Europe, and when he wakes up he finds someone making trouble. I am relieved the the discussion continues in the citizens thread...

Strider · Oct 28, 2004

gert-janl said:
Wow, a CJ lies himself to rest here in Western Europe, and when he wakes up he finds someone making trouble. I am relieved the the discussion continues in the citizens thread...

Causing Trouble? I was simply just showing that your wrong in your Judicial Ruling.

As both Black_Hole and KCCrusader brought to my attention, your ruling goes against Article H. of our constitution.

eyrei · Oct 28, 2004

Moderator Action: Strider, cease and desist at once, or you will be banned. Remember that this game is about fun, and noone really cares that DZ accepted his nomination 4 minutes after the election office closed nominations except you.

If you want something more along the lines of forum rules for this warning, your language included cursing twice, and you advertised your hatred of another forum member, which is flaming/trolling. Do not respond to this warning in public. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

blackheart · Oct 29, 2004

I have a question. Can governors directly request that units stationed in their province to be upgraded or does this have to pass thru the MSAV/military ministry?

Term 3 Judiciary

Deity

In Retrospect

Newspaper Mogul

Deity

unenlightened

In Retrospect

In Retrospect

Deity

In Retrospect

Deity

In Retrospect

Defending the Holy Land

Deity

Defending the Holy Land

In Retrospect

In Retrospect

Alive!!!

In Retrospect

Deity

unenlightened

Similar threads