Term 1 - Judiciary

The second question previously asked by Blkbird is now in order.

Blkbird said:
2. I further respectfully ask the Board to confirm that the elections for various offices of the Government - including the office of the President - of the first Term has been in accordance with the Constitution and the Code of Laws, and their results updated here are therefore effective and binding.

A cursory examination of the elections indicates they were held in accordance with the law, and the moderator-adjusted results (to remove DLs) are valid. This request does not have legal merit due to the obviousness of the answer and the extremely broad scope of the request.
 
Greekguy has requested a review of a proposed amendment to the Code of Laws.

This request is accepted and entered as docket C4DG1JR2. Justices, please review the proposed law for conflicts with existing law and post your findings.
 
mhcarver has requested a review of Code of Laws Section 7 A, on impeachment of the triumvirate.

mhcarver said:
my question is; must the whole triumvirate be impeached or can the citizens assembly impeach individual members without removing the entire triumvirate?

The Code of Laws says this

CoL said:
Section 7 Impeachment

A) Impeachment of the Triumvirate
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring a No Confidence Vote against the Triumvirate as a whole.

II. A No Confidence Vote requires a 6/10 (60%) majority to pass.

III. A successful No Confidence Vote shall remove the entire Triumvirate from office.

B) Impeachment of Cabinet Officials

I. The Citizens Assembly may bring an Impeachment Vote against any Cabinet Official.

II. An Impeachment Vote requires a 51/100 (51%) majority to pass.

III. A successful Impeachment Vote shall remove the specific official named in it from office.

C) Impeachment of Governors
I. Governors may not be Impeached.

D) Impeachment of Judges
I. Judges may not be Impeached..

E) Impeachment Polls
I. Impeachment Polls will have three options Yes, No, and Abstain.

II. Impeachment Poll may be started no earlier that 7 days after a previous one on the same office during the same term.


There is no apparent need for a full review, as the meaning of section 7 is clear. Valid impeachments are listed, anything not listed is not valid, so an impeachment against the Triumvirate affects all three members.
 
All judicial requests to this point should have been either accepted and added to the docket, or dismissed with a straightforward answer. If anyone believes they have submitted a request which was not answered or docketed, please renew the request by reposting it or posting a pointer to it.
 
DaveShack said:
The court will now vote on declaraing Alphawolf absent and the office of President vacant.
The Public Defender votes Yes, Alphawolf should be declared absent and the office of President declared vacant.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
 
DaveShack said:
A cursory examination of the elections indicates they were held in accordance with the law, and the moderator-adjusted results (to remove DLs) are valid. This request does not have legal merit due to the obviousness of the answer and the extremely broad scope of the request.

The Public Defender agrees with the Chief Justice - there is no cause for Judicial Review in this situation.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
 
DaveShack said:
There is no apparent need for a full review, as the meaning of section 7 is clear. Valid impeachments are listed, anything not listed is not valid, so an impeachment against the Triumvirate affects all three members.

The Public Defender agrees that there is no cause for Judicial Review in this situation.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
 
The Public Defender finds that this proposal does not conflict with any current law, and should be presented to the Assembly for their consideration.

As a note to new members of the DG, the Judiciary is looking on whether the proposal conflicts with another law. We're not saying it's good or bad, just that it doesn't contradict another law.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
 
DaveShack said:
The second question previously asked by Blkbird is now in order...

A cursory examination of the elections indicates they were held in accordance with the law, and the moderator-adjusted results (to remove DLs) are valid. This request does not have legal merit due to the obviousness of the answer and the extremely broad scope of the request.

I agree that there is no need to review the elecitons. In light of the recent up-holding of the CoL ratification polls and the universally recognized precedence of forum rules over demogame rules, it is proper and legal to accept the election results as adjusted by moderators.

DaveShack said:
The court will now vote on declaraing Alphawolf absent and the office of President vacant.

Alphawolf's last forum post was on Jan. 1, 2006. He made the following post in the absence registry on Dec. 31: I'll be gone from about an hour from now, until Monday morning. If he uses the same calendar as Donovan Zoi there's no telling when we'll hear from him.

It is my opinion (vote) that Alphawolf is absent and the Presidency vacant.

Regarding mhcarver's request for a judicial review:

DaveShack said:
There is no apparent need for a full review, as the meaning of section 7 is clear. Valid impeachments are listed, anything not listed is not valid, so an impeachment against the Triumvirate affects all three members.

I would like to exercise the right given by our judicial procedures and accept this request for a judicial review.

My next order of judicial business will be C4DG1JR2. I hope to get to that tonight.
 
donsig said:
Alphawolf's last forum post was on Jan. 1, 2006. He made the following post in the absence registry on Dec. 31: I'll be gone from about an hour from now, until Monday morning. If he uses the same calendar as Donovan Zoi there's no telling when we'll hear from him.

Honorable Justice donsig,

I would like to remind the court that it is improper for its members to alude to parties not pertinentent to the case unless they are reaping huge amounts of praise.

Then again, I am quite certain that the "Monday defense" has no precedent in this court. Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Japan
 
Maybe not, DZ - but it's a darn good shot!

Point to donsig! Turn to Donovan Zoi!

-- Ravensfire
 
The court has ruled 3-0 that Alphawolf has been absent from the forum for a time period exceeding the maximum allowed by law. The office of President is declared vacant under Code of Laws Section 1.A.IVA.

According to Code of Laws Section 1.A.IVB, the Secretary of State assumes the duties of the Presidency. Greekguy may now open a Presidential office or remain in the current SoS thread, and could open a new Triumvirate office if the current one is not suitable.
 
Judge Advocate Donsig has requested that the court proceed with a review of mhcarver's request regarding CoL Section 7, on impeachment. This case is added to the docket as C4DG1JR3 with the question:
Does Section 7 of the Code of Laws, Impeachment, require that an impeachment against the Triumvirate affect the President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of War, or may such an impeachment affect a subset or single member of the Triumvirate?
Evidence can be presented in this thread. If needed, we can move the case to its own thread.
 
Fellow members of the Judiciary,

According to my reading of our Code of Laws (Section 10.B) the judicial review of proposed amendments is the final step in the process before the ratification poll is posted. It is my understanding that the judiciary post the ratification poll and this is done using the proposed, and possibly subsequently edited, poll. It is implied in this that the judiciary should review the poroposed poll as well. Since this is the first proposed amendment to our code of laws it will set a precedent for all future proposed amendments. I feel it is very important to see see process handled in the best way possible. I think the proposed ratification poll can be improved and therefore I ask this JR be temporarily tabled. I will make a few comments in the amendment thread regarding the poll.

donsig
Judge Advocate
 
Relevant law for C4DG1JR3:

A) Impeachment of the Triumvirate
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring a No Confidence Vote against the Triumvirate as a whole.

II. A No Confidence Vote requires a 6/10 (60%) majority to pass.

III. A successful No Confidence Vote shall remove the entire Triumvirate from office.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
 
Judge Advocate donsig,

I agree that certain aspects of the poll are somewhat lacking, but the text of the law is my primary concern. I fully expect the Chief Justice, when he posts the poll, to fully and clearly explain the choice and to set the poll up correctly.

I feel that, as much as possible, the citizens should focus on the text and meaning of the law, and allow the Judiciary to correct anything around it that was not done correctly.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
 
ravensfire said:
Judge Advocate donsig,

I agree that certain aspects of the poll are somewhat lacking, but the text of the law is my primary concern. I fully expect the Chief Justice, when he posts the poll, to fully and clearly explain the choice and to set the poll up correctly.

I feel that, as much as possible, the citizens should focus on the text and meaning of the law, and allow the Judiciary to correct anything around it that was not done correctly.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

If the CJ sets up the poll *correctly* then what is the point of requiring a *pretend* poll to be posted in the dicussion thread? It seems to me the onus on providing a properly setup poll rests with the citizen initiating the initiative or the official refering the referendum and NOT the CJ.
 
donsig said:
If the CJ sets up the poll *correctly* then what is the point of requiring a *pretend* poll to be posted in the dicussion thread? It seems to me the onus on providing a properly setup poll rests with the citizen initiating the initiative or the official refering the referendum and NOT the CJ.

The most important part of the proposed poll (and the only part I look at) is the laws being added/replaced/updated/removed. Everything else is just extra.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
 
donsig said:
If the CJ sets up the poll *correctly* then what is the point of requiring a *pretend* poll to be posted in the dicussion thread? It seems to me the onus on providing a properly setup poll rests with the citizen initiating the initiative or the official refering the referendum and NOT the CJ.

In previous games this distinction didn't matter, but in this game it does, at least for now. This also hilights a collision between the CoL and the Judicial Procedures. The CoL was written with the distinction between initiative and referendum included in at least one place, and that is the role of the Censor. The idea seems to be that initiatives are polled by the Censor to make it clear that they are deriving from the citizenry. However, as was already pointed out in deliberations for JR1, if the main distinction between an initiative and a referendum is that a referendum is posted by an official responsible for that area and an initiative is not, then having either the Censor (in cases of assembly actions) or a Justice (in cases of amendments) post the poll defeats the idea of having it be an initiative.

I have to agree that the simplest short-term solution is to say in the poll what kind of poll it is meant to be. Things marked informational are opinion polls, things marked as initiatives are as stated, other polls posted by the responsible official are referendums.

There are other ways a poll may become an opinion poll, for example not following polling standards.

We need someone to bring a case on the definitions of polls, or an amendment process to be started to make them easier to understand. Any comments one way or the other on whether members of the Court should instigate such actions?

Edit: On the other hand, Ravensfire's point seems to be that the CJ could state the type of poll in the actual poll using the "correct" definition. This would work and it might be less error-prone, but it wouldn't answer donsig's apparent motivation of teaching people to clarify the poll type on their own. (don't want to put words in his mouth but this is what it seems).
 
DaveShack said:
We need someone to bring a case on the definitions of polls, or an amendment process to be started to make them easier to understand. Any comments one way or the other on whether members of the Court should instigate such actions?

I honestly hope we (the Judiciary) does not need to get involved. I really, really hope to see a discussion started on clarifying the poll types. I offer this mental exercise to the citizens - read the Constitution, and tell me exactly how I can tell the difference between an Initiative and a Referendum poll. Read the section, and answer it immediately, then sit back and think for a bit, and answer it again.

If it's confusing, start the discussion.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
 
Top Bottom