Term 5 Judiciary

Sorry Cyc still dont see it.

Donsig wrote: "Or is the DP free to make any needed decisions as they arise? I find it difficult to believe we cannot conduct business (play the save) if we are missing an officer or three."

First off..no he is not able to make decisions such as War and Peace with out the Censor or SoS posting instructions in an official capacity since that is up to the citizen assembly much like I was scolded for posting a referendum poll outside of my area.

IN MY OPINION...once again the judicairy showes they do not know THIS CoL..but rather other demo games CoL.

I am not bashing blindly...I can see what I am saying perhaps the judiciary with their unimpeachable powers need to step back and look at it as a citizen would.
 
robboo said:
Donsig wrote: "Or is the DP free to make any needed decisions as they arise? I find it difficult to believe we cannot conduct business (play the save) if we are missing an officer or three."

First off..no he is not able to make decisions such as War and Peace with out the Censor or SoS posting instructions in an official capacity since that is up to the citizen assembly much like I was scolded for posting a referendum poll outside of my area.

IN MY OPINION...once again the judicairy showes they do not know THIS CoL..but rather other demo games CoL.

I am not bashing blindly...I can see what I am saying perhaps the judiciary with their unimpeachable powers need to step back and look at it as a citizen would.

First of all, the judiciary has had no request for a judicial review on war and peace so all this talk about hypothetical situations is just citizen discussion.

Second, right, the DP cannot make decisions about war and peace since the CoL (the current one not one from a past DG) says only a instruction posted by the Censor based on a (presumably valid) citizen's assembly vote can declare war or make peace. The asbense of the instruction or the vote does not stop the game. The DP can still play he just can't make peace or declare war. He has to either continue play under the existing condition (be it war or peace) or he can stall and try to get a proper vote and instruction post. The game can go on.

Third, I did not say the Dp could actually do anything, I merely asked. NO ONE has answered. (Not even Nobody.)

Fourth, I did not scold you robboo. I merely pointed out that your poll could not be a referendum. I have spent many terms in this game trying to get everyone to properly use the different forms of decision making as outlined in our constitution.

Fifth, I did not make the rule that made justices unimpeachable. If you want to change that rule I will support you. If you want to request a judicial review of that law I can tell you right now I would rule it unconstitutional. (I think I've already gone on record as saying that.)

GeorgeOP said:
I did change the law. But people are interpreting it differently and now it doesn't help give jobs to people without jobs, it just bogs everything down.

A simple law stating the appointing officer had to appoint someone who did not have an office at the time of the vacancy would have been sufficient to do what you wanted. One sentence accomplishes that.
 
GeorgeOP said:
I did change the law. But people are interpreting it differently and now it doesn't help give jobs to people without jobs, it just bogs everything down.

Exactly right. More people say this than not -- a lot more. Actually you could attempt to claim that this is merely a typo of some sort, and use CoL Section 10 A.II to make the necessary changes correcting the law to say what it means. That's if any of our fine justices would care to explain, as I have, how they parse the current law, in their case to read differently than its meaning as written.

Actually, if they would offer proof instead of just incoherent babbling, maybe this would not be an issue.
 
DaveShack said:
Exactly right. More people say this than not -- a lot more. Actually you could attempt to claim that this is merely a typo of some sort, and use CoL Section 10 A.II to make the necessary changes correcting the law to say what it means. That's if any of our fine justices would care to explain, as I have, how they parse the current law, in their case to read differently than its meaning as written.

Actually, if they would offer proof instead of just incoherent babbling, maybe this would not be an issue.

If so many people are so concerned about this and putting so much effort into it then why hasn't the law been changed yet? I even drafted a replacement but no action has been taken on it. That tells me the people really don't care that much. This case has come before the judiciary and all three justices interpreted it the same way. What more do you want? If you don't like the interpretation we gave then do something to override it. Either pass a citizens initiative, a citizen's assembly vote or amend the CoL or constitution. But please don't keep arguing about it in this thread.
 
Please review the attached amendment to Section 8 of the Code of Laws.

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

The following amendment to the Code of Laws is hereby presented to the Citizen's Assembly for ratification. This is a citizen initiative poll, is public, and will be open for four days. To pass, 60% or more of those voting must vote yes.

Question: Do you approve the attached amendment to Section 8 of the Code of Laws?

Answers Yes, No, Abstain

[Link to discussion thread]


---------------------------------------------------------
Text of section to be replaced.
Section 8 - Office Limits and Vacancies

A) Limits to Running for Offices.
I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.

B) Limits to Holding Office
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
II. Governors and Members of the Cabinet may hold up to two offices at the same time.

C) Vacancies
I. A Vacancy occurs when an office is empty due to the office holder resigning, judicial action, impeachment, if no citizen ran for election for that office or when a new office is created.
II. Triumvirate Vacancies
IIA. If there is a Vacancy in the Triumvirate, the President shall nominate a citizen to that office. If the Presidency is Vacant, the Secretary of State, or Secretary of War if the Secretary of State is also Vacant, shall nominate a citizen to that office. The citizen must accept the nomination prior any further steps.​
IIB. The Judiciary shall confirm the appointment. If confirmed, the citizen takes office immediately. If not confirmed, a different citizen must be nominated.​
IIC. The nominee may be any citizen that does not currently hold a Triumvirate or Judicial position. If the nominee holds another office, they must resign immediately upon confirmation.​
IID. This appointment may not be challenged by a confirmation poll.​
III. Cabinet Vacancies
IIIA. The President must offer the position to the Deputy, if there is one.​
IIIB. If there is no deputy, the President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.​
IIIC. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll.​
IV. Governor Vacancies
IVA. The Governors Council must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Council within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Council may appoint any citizen to the office.​
IVB. If there is no Governors Council, the Minister of Interior must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Minister of Interior within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Minister of Interior may appoint any citizen to the office.​
V. Judicial Vacancies
VA. The President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.​
VB. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll.​
VI. All vacancy appointments which are subject to a confirmation poll are provisional until the time for a confirmation poll has passed, or when a confirmation poll for that appointment concludes with a 'Yes' majority.
Note: section VIA is a previous amendment which has been posted in the constitution / CoL thread but has not been edited into the CoL.
VIA.
Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office within 48 hours of the appointment. This must be a private poll, asking the question "Should the appointment of <citizen name> as <office> be confirmed", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll must last for 3 days. If the poll closes with more no votes than yes votes, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term. The appointee holds the office and is free to exercize the full powers of the office until such time as the appointment is reversed.​
VIB. A Citizen who holds office may apply for a new office before the 72 hour waiting period provided they write in their application that they will resign from their current office. That citizen does not have to resign until the provisional period passes.​
VII. Being a member of the Designated Player Pool is not considered holding an office and thus is not counted against a Citizen in terms of being able to run for and hold multiple offices.

---------------------------------------------------------
Text of section to be added in place of the above original text.
Section 8 - Limits on Office Holders, Vacancies, and Appointments

A. Limits to Running for Offices.
I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.

B. Limits to Holding Office
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
II. Governors and Members of the Cabinet may hold up to two offices at the same time, at least one via appointment.
III. No citizen may be appointed to a 2nd office unless no citizen without a position is interested in the empty office. The appointing official must announce a deadline for citizens to indicate their interest in the office, which shall not be less than 72 hours after the time the deadline is announced. This deadline is used solely for the purpose of demonstrating no citizen is interested in the office for the purpose this subsection. At any time that a citizen without an office expresses interest in the vacancy, the deadline of this section is considered fulfilled, a citizen without an office may be appointed immediately, and no person already holding an office may be appointed to this vacancy.
IV. A resignation contingent on an appointment may be used as a mechanism to permit a current office holder to acquire a new position, without violating subsections B.I and B.II of this section.

C. Vacancies

An office is vacant if any of the following conditions is met:
  1. No candidates accept a nomination for the office during elections
  2. The current office holder resigns, is impeached (recalled), or is removed from office as the result of a judicial action.
  3. The current office holder is absent from the Democracy Game forum, without notice, for a period of 5 or more days, and does not post in the Democracy Game forum within 48 hours of being notified that his/her presence is required.
D. Filling of Vacancies

A vacant office must be filled via the first method in this list which applies to the situation.
  1. The deputy for an office, if one exists, assumes the duties of the office.
  2. The President, if resigning from office and not being removed as the result of a recall or judicial action, appoints his/her successor.
  3. The President appoints a citizen to the office, other than the office of President.
  4. The Secretary of State appoints a citizen to the office of President, in cases where the vacancy is not due to voluntary resignation.
  5. The Secretary of War appoints a citizen to the office of President if the office of Secretary of State is also vacant.
  6. If the entire triumvirate is vacant, all three Triumvirate offices are filled via a Special Election, with nominations lasting 2 days and election polls lasting 3 days. After the special election, if any new Triumvirate member is elected, any remaining Triumvirate offices are filled by the appointment process in this section.
  7. If a special election for triumvirate offices fails to select any new triumvirate members, the highest ranking cabinet officer remaining assumes the duties of President.
E. All vacancy appointments are provisional until the time for a confirmation poll has passed, or when a confirmation poll for that appointment concludes with a 'Yes' majority.

F. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office within 48 hours of the appointment. This must be a private poll, asking the question "Should the appointment of <citizen name> as <office> be confirmed", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll must last for 3 days. If the poll closes with more no votes than yes votes, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term. The appointee holds the office and is free to exercize the full powers of the office until such time as the appointment is reversed.

G. Being a member of the Designated Player Pool is not considered holding an office and thus is not counted against a Citizen in terms of being able to run for and hold multiple offices.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 
I have a problem with a portion of 8.B.III.

It states, "At any time that a citizen without an office expresses interest in the vacancy, the deadline of this section is considered fulfilled, a citizen without an office may be appointed immediately".

By this statement, one and only one citizen can apply for the offfice in question. If a problem occurs with their application or some other difficulty arises that precludes their appointment, the 72 hour waiting period has ended and no other citizen can apply. By prematurely ending the 72 hour waiting period that the President must afford our citizens, the above line appears to be unconstitutional.
 
Wouldnt this new version overwrite the 72 hours rule. I mean there has to be a way to rewrite the Col/constitution.

Unless you are sayign that once something is in the CoL/constitution it can not be changed?
 
robboo said:
Wouldnt this new version overwrite the 72 hours rule. I mean there has to be a way to rewrite the Col/constitution.

Unless you are sayign that once something is in the CoL/constitution it can not be changed?
Uh, no. That's not what I'm saying, robboo.

Try reading the ammendment that DS has proposed above and all the information will be there for you. You will find what I have said is true.

Even in this re-write, the 72 hour waiting period remains and must be enforced. It's tough being benevolent, isn't it.

Just think, after the revolution, your king, who won't need silly laws, can do what he wants....
 
Pull your head out, please. :rolleyes:

The office must be filled by someone who does not already have an office.

If 3 days pass, and there are no people interested in the position that do not already hold another office, then someone who already has an office can be appointed.

Show exactly what about the proposal does not mean what I've just written.
 
Dumb questiosn...can I write an amendment to get rid of the 72 hour rule? IF so tell me how must it be worded to avoid conflicts like you mentioned above.
 
Cyc said:
I have a problem with a portion of 8.B.III.

It states, "At any time that a citizen without an office expresses interest in the vacancy, the deadline of this section is considered fulfilled, a citizen without an office may be appointed immediately".

By this statement, one and only one citizen can apply for the offfice in question. If a problem occurs with their application or some other difficulty arises that precludes their appointment, the 72 hour waiting period has ended and no other citizen can apply.
Other people could apply, in particular if the President or other appointing official doesn't want to appoint the first person who does apply. What this does mean is that if the 1st applicant is satisfactory, it is not necessary to wait for another.

By prematurely ending the 72 hour waiting period that the President must afford our citizens, the above line appears to be unconstitutional.
Let me use an analogy here.

During a CC proceeding, the JA opens the guilt / innocence discussion thread. For the 1st 24 hours, only the PD (or appointed substitute) and the accused are allowed to post, unless they have both posted, in which case the 24 hour limit no longer applies.

During a CC appointment proceeding, the JA President opens the guilt / innocence discussion application thread. For the 1st 24 72 hours, only the PD (or appointed substitute) and the accused people without an office are allowed to apply post, unless they have both one has applied posted, in which case the 24 72 hour limit no longer applies.

What does this conflict with? We've been doing exactly the same thing as part of the CC procedures for something like 4 games now.
 
robboo said:
Dumb questiosn...can I write an amendment to get rid of the 72 hour rule? IF so tell me how must it be worded to avoid conflicts like you mentioned above.

Don't worry about it, if we don't get a clarification which favors our position, I'll just remove the entire 72 hour thing and resubmit the existing proposal.

It's a shame this has to happen, because the whole point is to encourage appoinments of new people, something that we're been trying to do for ages.
 
DaveShack said:
It's a shame this has to happen, because the whole point is to encourage appoinments of new people, something that we're been trying to do for ages.

Then why don't you just propose a CoL amendment that says The appointing official must appoint someone who does not hold another office at the time of the appintment? In one sentence you can do more than just encourage the appointment of new people. You can also do away with the mandatory time issue and call for applications. You'd also give the judiciary a much easier amendment to review. The huge proposal before us right now will take quite a bit of time to review correctly.
 
donsig said:
Then why don't you just propose a CoL amendment that says The appointing official must appoint someone who does not hold another office at the time of the appintment? In one sentence you can do more than just encourage the appointment of new people. You can also do away with the mandatory time issue and call for applications. You'd also give the judiciary a much easier amendment to review. The huge proposal before us right now will take quite a bit of time to review correctly.

That would eliminate the ability for someone to hold multiple offices.

Why don't you just stop thinking of the time issue as mandatory? Then we wouldn't need to change the law at all. :p
 
DaveShack said:
That would eliminate the ability for someone to hold multiple offices.

Why not make a choice of which is more important (letting people have multiple offices or encouraging new office holders) and write the law accordingly. By trying to write a law that allows both you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
 
donsig said:
Why not make a choice of which is more important (letting people have multiple offices or encouraging new office holders) and write the law accordingly. By trying to write a law that allows both you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

The problem with encouraging new office holders, is that we dont have any of the new to encourage. We are running very short on persoanly, and in my personaly opinion need to consolidate positions.
 
Can we maybe finish the process on the current amendment?

I'm waiting for a response to my analogy between this proposal and the CC procedures which have been in place virtually forever. Either we've been screwing up the CC process for almost as long as I've been in the DemoGame, or it's perfectly OK to start off with a limitation and then lift it when a condition is met.
 
DaveShack said:
Can we maybe finish the process on the current amendment?

I'm waiting for a response to my analogy between this proposal and the CC procedures which have been in place virtually forever. Either we've been screwing up the CC process for almost as long as I've been in the DemoGame, or it's perfectly OK to start off with a limitation and then lift it when a condition is met.

Have you asked for a judicial review of the CC process?
 
Top Bottom