Law Proposal 1: Law Regulation [now with poll]

House of the People of Japanatica Proposal 1: Law Regulation
Proposed by Citizen and Deputy Minister of Domestic Affairs Epimethius in Term 1

WHEREAS the Article E of the Constitution of Japanatica states that the House of the People has a right to pass laws; and

WHEREAS the same article also states that the Supreme Court of Japanatica will review all laws, amendments, and articles; and

WHEREAS the House of the People consists of all registered citizens of Japanatica; and

WHEREAS the Constitution of Japanatica does not specify any method of proposing, approving, or enforcing laws; and

WHEREAS amendments and articles of the Constitution cannot be repealed, have high necessary majorities, and add to or change the constitution rather than exist below it;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of the People of Japanatica, consisting of all properly registered citizens, have the right to pass laws via polls in a method outlined in this resolution, the first of such laws: any citizen may propose a law, and must do so in a topic with the text of the law, a summary if it is in legalese, and a 48-hour poll with the options for (yes), against (no), or otherwise (abstain) whether the proposal should become law. If a majority (greater than half those voting for either yes or no) approve of the law, it takes effect. The three justices of the Supreme Court shall hold collective veto power, as they would with a judicial review of an amendment, but shall not conduct a complete, traditional review of the proposal. Should the law be deemed to be unconstitutional, they may veto it, in which case the vote will be void; otherwise their approval will be given and the people's vote will count. This is not to be considered a regular review, such as that for an amendment, and will not take place in the Judicial thread, or be numbered as such.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the laws shall be numbered and collected, with links to their polls, in a Code of Laws.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any law already passed, including (but not restricted to) this, may be repealed by the same means.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if approved by a majority of the people voting for or against, this law will take effect immediately.

---

Summary: Basically, this outlines how to make laws. Up until now, we've had lots of amendments, which are serious things. An amendment changes the constitution. A law, on the other hand, exists below the constitution, and can't contradict it. The constitution outlines how to pass amendments, but said nothing on laws, so a lot of things that should simply be laws were being made amendments. So I wrote this. Basically, a proposal would become a law like this:
-A citizen starts a poll, with the proposed law in the first post and a poll with yes/no/abstain options.
-For two days the citizens vote in the poll.
-The Supreme Court does a semi-review, to save time. Rather than do an official thing, they all just read over it and decide if its constitutional or not. If it isn't, they can veto it. This happens in the poll, not in the judicial thread, and isn't counted in the list of judicial acts. This is still, officially, a review (or else it would be unconstitutional), but it is more informal. This is one of the main differences from an amendment.
-The law passes if a majority (anything above half) of those who voted for something other than abstain aprove the law and it isn't vetoed.
-A law can be repealed the same way it is enacted.

The result is that a law can be approved without a certain percent of the population voting, without a certain majority above 50%, can be repealed, and doesn't need a full judicial review. I know that Article E didn't exactly pass, but I don't think this can wait much longer. This will provide, among other things, a way for Provolution to make his immense bureaucracy plan legal.

This is a public poll, so misvotes can be corrected.

The first time I tried this I forgot the poll.

I must issue a Judicial order to close this poll due to the fact that this law has not yet completed Judicial Review. Also, there has been no discussion amongst the citizenry concerning the law. I ask the sponsor, Epimethius, to read the Judicial Procedings post as outlined by Cyc. This can be found here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2050912&postcount=2

Start by creating a discussion thread in the "Citizens" board. After the law has been discussed it my be presented for Judicial Review. Then a member of the judiciary will post the poll if it passes JR.

Thank you for your interest in the law making process esteemed Epimethius!

I dont really think we need more laws, it limits our freedom, the constitution is enough to play the demogame

How very ... interesting.

A law, that breaks law, based on law that doesn't exist, from someone that wanted to break more laws.

This is quite amusing!

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire said:

How very ... interesting.

A law, that breaks law, based on law that doesn't exist, from someone that wanted to break more laws.

This is quite amusing!

-- Ravensfire

Click to expand...

lol my heads spinning

I would have to concur with Public Defender KCCrusader. This poll needs to be closed. Epi's intent is to initiate a Code of Laws with this proposal. Initiating a Book of lower Law, immediately subordinate to the Constitution, requires a lot of public discussion. There has been no public discussion. Proposing a Law of this nature requires a "Proposed Poll" to be posted in said discussion thread for a 24 hour period. This has not been done. Although I can see hoe Epi may want to fast-track this matter, it is not one that can be.

I request that a Moderator close this poll.

Could someone point out the Constitutional text that states the Judiciary controls how laws are passed?

As posted in The Contitution of Japanatica, Article C authorizes the Judicial Branch to exist in our Government. Article F specifies that your concern is indeed with our authorization/job description.

Article C states:

The government will consist of the Executive Branch,
Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.

Article F states:

The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public
Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices
are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting
laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed
by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional
responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the
Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as council to an
accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

Thank you for the response Cyc. I guess we just disagree on the meaning of Article F. As the Constitution is silent on how laws are passed, I see that there is nothing for the Judiciary to uphold.

zorven said:

Thank you for the response Cyc. I guess we just disagree on the meaning of Article F. As the Constitution is silent on how laws are passed, I see that there is nothing for the Judiciary to uphold.

Click to expand...

I guess you haven't read the Constitution, zorven. It states right in Article F that the Judiciary is tasked with upholding (or for your concern, maintaining) the Constitution. It also states the Chief Justice is responsible for organizing and conducting said affairs.

Article I lays done some specifics about how laws are passed, so where do ou see any opening where there is nothing for the Judiciary to uphold?

Cyc said:

I guess you haven't read the Constitution, zorven. It states right in Article F that the Judiciary is tasked with upholding (or for your concern, maintaining) the Constitution. It also states the Chief Justice is responsible for organizing and conducting said affairs.

Article I lays done some specifics about how laws are passed, so where do ou see any opening where there is nothing for the Judiciary to uphold?

Click to expand...

Article F deals with upholding the what is written in the Constitution and that the CJ can set the procedures for how the Court goes about this. But, the Constitution does not say anything about how to pass a law, so how can the Court have procedures to address it?

Article I deals with Constitutional Amendments, not laws.

Cyc said:

I guess you haven't read the Constitution, zorven. It states right in Article F that the Judiciary is tasked with upholding (or for your concern, maintaining) the Constitution. It also states the Chief Justice is responsible for organizing and conducting said affairs.

Article I lays done some specifics about how laws are passed, so where do ou see any opening where there is nothing for the Judiciary to uphold?

Click to expand...

Additionally, if I might intrude, specific guidelines have been posted in the Judicial thread (which are implied in Article F to be the duty of the Judiciary) so that we can proceed in an orderly manner to arrive at legal decisions. Believe me, I appreciate Epi's efforts on this, and hope that everyone takes the time to carefully consider it. However, after having toiled day and night hammering out verbage, I know it is important for people to have a say not only in the outcome, but also in the language. The guidelines, I believe, protect us from unwanted legislation being tossed about. If people participate in the process it becomes clearer as to what they really want.

I'm tired now... so I hope that made sense.

zorven said:

Article F deals with upholding the what is written in the Constitution and that the CJ can set the procedures for how the Court goes about this. But, the Constitution does not say anything about how to pass a law, so how can the Court have procedures to address it?

Article I deals with Constitutional Amendments, not laws.

Click to expand...

As you were part of a past Judiciary, zorven, you are fully aware that any Law dealing with building or changing any part of the Code of Laws would be posted in the Code of Laws, not in the Constitution. The lower Books of Law are called the Lower Books because they are the subordinate books OF the Constitution. This all makes sense, zorven. Please stop trying to make it seem otherwise.

Article I is specifically limited to amendments to the constitution. As lower laws do not constitute such an amendment, Article I does not apply, and the judiciary may not apply it to any action other than an amendment.

ravensfire said:

How very ... interesting.

A law, that breaks law, based on law that doesn't exist, from someone that wanted to break more laws.

This is quite amusing!

-- Ravensfire

Click to expand...

Thanks for not abstaining on this public poll, RF. I stand with you in rejection of this law until more discussion is had.

zorven said:

Could someone point out the Constitutional text that states the Judiciary controls how laws are passed?

Click to expand...

Feel free to submit a request for a Judicial Review of my order. I will even sit out of the procedings if requested.

For reference:

DaveShack said:

Article I is specifically limited to amendments to the constitution. As lower laws do not constitute such an amendment, Article I does not apply, and the judiciary may not apply it to any action other than an amendment.

Click to expand...

President DaveShack, I'm not sure of your extent of experience in the Judiciary, but in answer to your statement above, I would suggest that you read my reply to zorven:

As you were part of a past Judiciary, zorven, you are fully aware that any Law dealing with building or changing any part of the Code of Laws would be posted in the Code of Laws, not in the Constitution. The lower Books of Law are called the Lower Books because they are the subordinate books OF the Constitution. This all makes sense, zorven. Please stop trying to make it seem otherwise.

And in regards to your comment of Article I, zorven stated that he could not find any Legislation in the Constitution on how laws are passed. Our Articles of the Constitution are Laws, and yes Article I does define the Amendment process of them. I was merely pointing this out to zorven, as he claimed there was nothing for the Judiciary to uphold. This is very volatile language, as is this whole discussion and poll. We need to tone this period of accusation and interpretation so that we can move forward in a calm manner.

Cyc said:

The lower Books of Law are called the Lower Books because they are the subordinate books OF the Constitution.

Click to expand...

I assume then that you mean the Lower Books of Law are PART OF the Constituion. If this the case, then any lower laws must meet the same tests of ratifcation set forth in Article I, right? If you have always interpreted it this way, then why did you not object in past games when the lower books had different ratification requirements in contradiction to the ratification requirements set forth in the Constititution?

I take the view that the lower laws are seperate from the Constititution. They may not contradict the Constitution, but they are a seperate entity that is the domain of the Legislature. Therefore, the Legislature is the body that gets to decide how lower laws are to be ratified, not the Judiciary.

Cyc said:

I would have to concur with Public Defender KCCrusader. This poll needs to be closed. Epi's intent is to initiate a Code of Laws with this proposal. Initiating a Book of lower Law, immediately subordinate to the Constitution, requires a lot of public discussion. There has been no public discussion. Proposing a Law of this nature requires a "Proposed Poll" to be posted in said discussion thread for a 24 hour period. This has not been done. Although I can see hoe Epi may want to fast-track this matter, it is not one that can be.

I request that a Moderator close this poll.

Click to expand...

Let me be clear on this. Since article I is narrowly defined to constitutional amendments, there is no formal, hard requirement to have a "proposed poll". I object to your objection being stated that it's a requirement.

This should not be misconstrued that I disagree with the position that this law went too fast. I too would like to see such a discussion, but feel we must have a review on whether article I applies (which logically must be answered as no given how narrowly the article is written), followed by a review on whether justices can pre-emptively stop a law which has not followed tradition but for which there is no formal process set. The current justices would be obliged to recuse themselves from the second review.

Let it die of natural causes on the grounds that no discussion was held.