Term 4 Judiciary-the carver court

DGVIT4JR2 Public Defenders Comments (not final decision just comments i will fialism my decision after hearing more from the other judges and citizens)

1.What constitutes a valid discussion?
Click to expand...

This is hard to answer, I planned to look at the constitution but it has no reference to a time span, at all. So i decided to find the definition of "Discussion" which is
to talk about a subject with someone and tell each other your ideas or opinions:
Click to expand...
or
2 to talk or write about a subject in detail, especially considering different ideas and opinions related to it:
Click to expand...
.

So i think that a legal discussion should have a miniumum of one more Idea or Opinion or Point of view added to it after the first post. Plus a post from any goverment branch concerned.


*Dictionary used is the Cambridge Online Dictionary http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=22235&dict=CALD
 
I am sorry to all of the citizens but because I just started working I have been very busy and will not be able to rule until tommorow when I have a day off.
 
mhcarver said:
I am sorry to all of the citizens but because I just started working I have been very busy and will not be able to rule until tommorow when I have a day off.
Click to expand...
Ouch, that must be a real downer :(.
 
the question before the court here is "what constitutes a valid discussion?" for the sake of continuity I will use nobodys first definition of a discussion which is

to talk about a subject with someone and tell each other your ideas or opinions:
Click to expand...

Just to be clear in this case I consider talk to mean interactions on the message board. Because of the definition of discussion I rule that a valid discsuccion is one in which one or more other opinions was presented and that failing the presence of other opinions one or more posts concurring with a suggestion.
 
Hmm, this one is a toughy. But in all simplicity. A valid discsuccion contains one or many options that has been presented to the public and often has two or more posts with approval, suggestions, and criticizm. I agree with Nobody's and Mhcarver's presentation of the definition of a discusccion.
 
So, if only one person posts an opinion, is that a discussion? If I read it correctly, then CG says yes, mhcarver and nobody say no.

I would say an official has to give the opportunity for discussion. If no-one wants to discuss, then the official cannot be blamed for that...

I think classical_hero was mainly concerned with the time-frame, i.e., how long should there be opportunity for discussion before a decision is made?
 
PD's ruling on Dgvit4jr2

I find dicussion to be defined as:
to talk about a subject with someone and tell each other your ideas or opinions:
Click to expand...

Where talk means interaction on these forums.
 
zyxy said:
I think classical_hero was mainly concerned with the time-frame, i.e., how long should there be opportunity for discussion before a decision is made?
Click to expand...
You summised correctly. Don't forget that we need to have discussion for everyone, because we have people from all over the world and not all discussions can be done over a few hours.
 
zyxy said:
So, if only one person posts an opinion, is that a discussion? If I read it correctly, then CG says yes, mhcarver and nobody say no.

I would say an official has to give the opportunity for discussion. If no-one wants to discuss, then the official cannot be blamed for that...

I think classical_hero was mainly concerned with the time-frame, i.e., how long should there be opportunity for discussion before a decision is made?
Click to expand...


1.yes that is correct

2. for that I refer you to this portion of my ruling failing the presence of other opinions one or more posts concurring with a suggestion. the problem is that nowhere in our constitution is a timeframe made for discussions so a valid discussion can only be interpreted by opinion

3.You are right about the time frame but the judiciary can only interptet the constitution , we cannot add to it and I cannot find any point in the constitution from which I can draw a ruling on timing of discussions.
 
To follow up on classical_hero's point, one could argue that Article A gives every citizen the right to assemble and the right to free speech, which would imply that all timezones have to be able to see the topic and be given a chance to respond. Not doing so might not be enough to convict someone of a crime but both this broad reading of Article A and long standing tradition say that 24 hours is the "normal minimum" for discussions.

If a leader thinks that a group decision was already made on a subject, there might not be any discussion on implementing that decision, which might lead to changed circumstances not being taken into account. This is why I have said in the past that decisions are only valid while the conditions they are based upon are still true. In this specific case (MGL's) a prior decision to build an army would be invalidated by a small wonder being available to build.

This is not a CC so we don't need to get all formal about it, but I think a good way to defuse it would be for the President to acknowledge that a new discussion would have been appropriate.
 
DaveShack said:
To follow up on classical_hero's point, one could argue that Article A gives every citizen the right to assemble and the right to free speech, which would imply that all timezones have to be able to see the topic and be given a chance to respond. Not doing so might not be enough to convict someone of a crime but both this broad reading of Article A and long standing tradition say that 24 hours is the "normal minimum" for discussions.

If a leader thinks that a group decision was already made on a subject, there might not be any discussion on implementing that decision, which might lead to changed circumstances not being taken into account. This is why I have said in the past that decisions are only valid while the conditions they are based upon are still true. In this specific case (MGL's) a prior decision to build an army would be invalidated by a small wonder being available to build.

This is not a CC so we don't need to get all formal about it, but I think a good way to defuse it would be for the President to acknowledge that a new discussion would have been appropriate.
Click to expand...
you make a very valid point DS, however since I will be on vacation soon I will not be able to re-evaluate my ruling since I have to go to work sooon and will be on vacation soon so I am leaving the option on re-evaluating the deciscion to my talented pro-tem Blackhole
 
==================================================
The Temporary Term 4 Docket
==================================================

DGVITIVJR2
Filed by:Classical Hero
Status:Merit approved
Details:CH has requested a review on what constitutes a valid discussion
 
Pro Term Chief Justice Checking in :)

Daveshack brings up a valid point, I will reinterperet the JR in about 7 hours(when my pro term begins)...
I have posted a termporary docket above as I cannot edit mhcarver's posts.
 
zyxy said:
So, if only one person posts an opinion, is that a discussion? If I read it correctly, then CG says yes, mhcarver and nobody say no.
Click to expand...
Actualy, I say no. Edited my previous post for clarification.
 
After reviewing the law at DaveShack's request, I have found Article A does in fact give all citizens a right to view and respond to a discussion. Because of timezones, the discussion must be atleast 24 hours long so all timezones can discuss it.

Personally I find the above definition is very poor, a better one would be:
The participation of citizens in an organazation of arguments and opinions.
Click to expand...

I would like the other justices to clarify on whether a discussion must be atleast 24 hours in length. And which defintion to use.
 
Black_Hole said:
After reviewing the law at DaveShack's request, I have found Article A does in fact give all citizens a right to view and respond to a discussion. Because of timezones, the discussion must be atleast 24 hours long so all timezones can discuss it.

Personally I find the above definition is very poor, a better one would be:
Hey a quote in a quote said:
The participation of citizens in an organazation of arguments and opinions.
Click to expand...


I would like the other justices to clarify on whether a discussion must be atleast 24 hours in length. And which defintion to use.
Click to expand...
I agree with the Pro-term CJ's definition in regards to the definition of a discussion. I have found nothing related to the 24 hour limit for a discussion. What I beleve is that the discussion must have an age of at least 24 hours is one of the unwritten courtesy rules to give respect to all citizens living in each timezone to give them a chance to put in their two cents into the discussion.
 
I am getting confused here, and I think the judiciary is walking on thin ice.

Let me explain. Classical_hero has asked for a JR on what constitutes a valid discussion. The court has correctly noted that our current law does not provide such a definition. IMO, that should end the JR, as a JR is intended for "Interpretation and clarification of existing Law" (Court procedures E4).

Instead the justices have been trying to add a requirement for a discussion to be valid. First they unanimously decided on a requirement of participation, but now the majority has swayed to requiring a minimum time period. Whatever it will be, you are trying to write new law here.

Our constitution allows for new law to be added through approval by the General Assembly, but not through a JR. I therefore kindly ask the court to reconsider. IMO the correct judgement on this JR should be that the current law does not provide any requirements on discussions, but that any citizen is encouraged to initiate the procedure for adding such requirements. (I can well imagine that an amendment adding a minimum time period can count on broad popular support).
 
zyxy said:
I am getting confused here, and I think the judiciary is walking on thin ice.

Let me explain. Classical_hero has asked for a JR on what constitutes a valid discussion. The court has correctly noted that our current law does not provide such a definition. IMO, that should end the JR, as a JR is intended for "Interpretation and clarification of existing Law" (Court procedures E4).

Instead the justices have been trying to add a requirement for a discussion to be valid. First they unanimously decided on a requirement of participation, but now the majority has swayed to requiring a minimum time period. Whatever it will be, you are trying to write new law here.

Our constitution allows for new law to be added through approval by the General Assembly, but not through a JR. I therefore kindly ask the court to reconsider. IMO the correct judgement on this JR should be that the current law does not provide any requirements on discussions, but that any citizen is encouraged to initiate the procedure for adding such requirements. (I can well imagine that an amendment adding a minimum time period can count on broad popular support).
Click to expand...
we are not writing a new law, we are interpereting Article A:
Code: 
Article A.  All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen 
            Registry are citizens of our country. [b]Citizens have the 
            right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right 
            to free speech, [/b]the right to a fair and speedy trial, the
	    right to representation, the right to name units (within
	    the naming convention), the right to request an 
	    investigation into possible violations of law and the 
	    right to vote.
That says that citizens have the right to participate in discussions, but because of timezones for allcitizens to have this right, discussions must be atleast 24 hours in length. If someone from Eastern USA creates a discussion for 12 hours during the day, half of the world could not participate in that discussion, this violates the rights of people in the western hemisphere of the world. However it seems CivGeneral's reason was different, citing "unwritten laws", which of course do not exist. I hope he clarifies...

I disagree with the other justices that someone else must respond, if citizens have a chance to respond but don't that can still be taken as a discussion, most likely there was no argument to the leader so the discussion is still valid.

To the Public Defender and Judge Advocate:
This is going to be a tricky thing for me to put together as a majority opinion. I would like all justices to answer the following questions:

1. Must discussions be atleast 24 hours in length?
2. Does another citizen besides the topic poster have to respond to make the discussion valid?

My answers:
1. Yes
2. No
 
Black_Hole,

Thank you for your considered response. Although I disagree with your reasoning, I can see where your interpretation comes from, and I do agree that this is what the law should say. I hope you don't mind this interference with your business.

Unfortunately, the three rights you highlight are not explained further in the law, so interpretation can only be based on "common sense", or the use of these phrases in wordly systems of law.

The "right to free speech" usually means that citizens may not be hindered in voicing their opinion. It usually does not mean that they have to be heard by a minister or similar government official. My interpretation of this would be that every citizen has the right to post in a thread, or open a new thread. Of course your interpretation may be different, and IMO any interpretation makes new law, precisely because this article is so vague. One might be able to patch this together using the article on the will of the people, but that's a pretty vague one too.

The "right to assemble" usually means the right to form parties or citizen groups. Does not apply here.

I have no idea what "the right to free movement" is supposed to mean in the context of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Birdjaguar
SCOTUS news and opinions
36 37 38
Replies
752
Views
45K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Askthepizzaguy
[RD] The threat to American Democracy
15 16 17
Replies
328
Views
25K
Sommerswerd
Sommerswerd
I
Entering the ranks of Putin and Erdogan: Xi Jinping to abolish presidential term limit in China
Replies
3
Views
1K
warpus
warpus
onejayhawk
  • Locked
Supreme Court of the United States
119 120 121
Replies
2K
Views
116K
Arakhor
Arakhor
Gucumatz
As you grow older, you drift politically to the left. (Well if you are a SC Judge)
Replies
13
Views
2K
uppi
U
Back
Top Bottom