Term 1 - Judicial Thread

Our Constitution can be found here.

The Judicial Log

The Official Active Census for Term 1 is 58.
Quorum for ratifying an Amendment to the Constitution is 38 Yes votes.
________________________________

Term 1 Judicial Procedure ~
________________________________

1. The Judiciary is comprised of three members, the Chief Justice, the Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate.

2. All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and responsibilities.
A. Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and any lower laws.
B. Do not have Deputies, but may appoint Pro-Tem officials (Pro-Tem CJ, Pro-Tem PD, and Pro-Tem JA) if they are unable to fulfill their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for, but are a temporary position, and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official. The pro-tem status may be given for individual assigments or for the entirety of the official (this must be declared).
C. Participate in Judicial Review to determine the leagality of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
D. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing Constitutional Articles and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
E. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to examine whether or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
F. Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

3. The Chief Justice ~
A. Perform as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge Advocate in the absense of either official. This duty shall only apply if said officials have not appointed a Pro-Tem official.
B. Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial thread at the begining of the Term.
C. Is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.
D. Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on topic and procedurally accurate.

4. The Public Defender ~
A. Is tasked with ensuring all Citizen's Complaint investigations are performed correctly, with deference to the presumed innocense of the accused.
B. Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought against them and what rules were purportedly broken so the accused can mount an effective defense.
C. Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

5. The Judge Advocate ~
A. Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations and trial.
B. Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
C. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence) for any anonimous accusers.

6. All Judicial Review and Investigations will be held publicly. Communication between the Justices will be posted in the Judicial thread or the Investigation threads.

7. Judicial Review ~
A. A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary.
B. Review of proposed legislation.
1. Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
2. The request is posted in the appropriate list in post #3 of this thread.
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
4. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the house with detail of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
5. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.
C. Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.
1. Any member of the house may request a Judicial Review for interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. The request must be formatted in a YES or NO question format. If it is not, the Judiciary may reformat the request in order to achieve this goal. The existing Law must also be clearly stated in the request.
2. The request is posted in the appropriate list in post #3 of this thread.
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
4. The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial Log for reference.
D. Dismissal of Investigations deemed as having "No Merit".
1. 3 of 3 Justices must agree that the accusation shows "No Merit".
2. Specific reasoning must be given by each Justice for a judgement of "No Merit".

8. Citizen's Complaint ~
A. If any citizen believes that someone has violated an Article of the Constitution or any other lower form of law, they can report this suspected violation for investigation and trial.
1. The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
2. The allegation can be made privately to the Chief Justice via Private Message.
B. Allegations of misconduct must include:
1. Name of the defendant.
2. The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
3. When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.
C. The Citizen's Complaint is posted in the appropriate list in post #3 of this thread.
D. The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused of the charge(s).
E. A brief Judicial Review of the charge(s) is done (see 7.D above) to determine if the charges have "No Merit".
F. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
1. The first two replies to this thread are reserved for the Public Defender and the accused to respond publicly to the charge(s) (Defense). Either may post first, and both may say what they wish (within forum rules). If their replies/responses have not been posted within 24 hours of the thread's posting, they lose these reserved spots and anyone can post.
G. Citizens can post in this thread their opinions on the charge(s), whether they think the accused is guilty of the infraction or not, and if the case should go to Trial.
H. If the accused pleads guilty, the Trial is skipped and the case moves to the Sentencing Process. The Chief Justice may close the Investigation thread early if this occurs.
I. When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.
1. If the results of the Investigation (defined as input in the Investigation thread) thread are overwhelmingly in favor of the Defendant, the Judge Advocate will submit the case for abrief Judicial Review to determine if the case has "No Merit". If the case is then viewed as having "No Merit" the case is closed.
2. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent, and Abstain and will remain open for 72 hours.
3. In the event the Trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine if the defendant is innocent or guilty by posting independant and clear Opinions at the end of the Trial poll.
J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1 The Sentencing poll will remain open for 72 hours, and have the following Options:
a. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
b. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
c. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
d. Warning
e. No Punishment
f. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the current offense, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
3. In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independant and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.
4. The guilty party must abide by the results of the Sentencing poll.

9. The Judicial Log may be referenced for further interpretation or clarification, but may not be used for criteria for review of proposed legislation.

10. For any Judicial Review ruling or issue involved with a Citizen Complaint, each Justices must post independantly their opinion on the matter. In essance, they must answer the question asked by the Judicial Review in a Yes or No fashion (have "Merit" or "No Merit" also applies here). Specifically, there will be no "fence-riding". Each Justice will come down on one side of the issue or the other, clearly.

EDIT: Changed the word Trial to Sentencing in 8.J.3.

Constitutional Amendments and other Judicial Reviews.
______________________________________________

DG5JR1
complete ~ Article D and the Chain of Command
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR2
complete ~ Proposed Ammendment to Article H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR3
complete ~ Proposed Amendment to Article O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR4
complete ~ Proposed Amendment to Article E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR5
closed ~ Candidates winning two elections simultaneously
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR6
complete ~ Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Article I of the Constitution
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR7
complete ~ Existance of Governors and Provinces.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR8
complete ~ Article M and it's meaning in regards to stopping play.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR9
complete ~ Tie breaking votes by Leaders
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR10
complete ~ Proposed Amendment to the Code of Laws. This is the first Law to be entered into the Code of Laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR11
complete ~ Proposed Amendment to Article G of the Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DG5JR12
complete ~ Non-executive Offices and binding Instructions for the TCIT.

Citizen Complaints.

Do you have any openings for Ambulance Chasers... ahem... Defenders of Civil Rights?

Congrats on yet another term as CJ.

Congrats Cyc, I'm glad one of our most experienced players holds this position at the beginning of this game.

I must say... that's the prettiest Judiciary thread ever.

Actually, the PD is "KCCrusader", not KKCrusader.

And here I was thinking KFCrusader.

Congrats Cyc. You should keep aspirin near your computer.

Thank you everyone (except CT, leave it to a Demogame Mod to insult someone's creative work) for the kind words. Sorry KCCrusader, the typo has been corrected. Thanks for pointing that out Comnenus.

Zarn, I have plenty of aspirins. And as you can see by the Judicial Procedures above, I have plenty of pacifiers for those of us who wish to be childish this Term by posting a gazillion legal actions.

That was a compliment...

Congrats, Cyc. I'm glad this position was won by a highly competent CJ, and I'm sure this term will be quite productive. Hopefully this isn't the only productive term in the judiciary, like last DG.

Request for Judicial review

Let's get started, shall we? In the Presidential thread, President DaveShack has appointed Chieftess as Vice President of Japanatica. While I have no problem with this appointment, I have concerns that the precedent of past DemoGames will dictate that the Vice President position will be allowed to supercede Constitutionally recognized leaders in an implied Chain of Command for gameplay.

Therefore, in reference to Article D of our Constitution:

With no laws in place to state the contrary, can an implied Chain of Command be granted by Article D, or is the President free to pass the game on to whomever he wishes?

Here is the article in question:


Thank you to the Judiciary for your time, and congratulations to you all on your election to the bench.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
Minister of Trade

May it please the Court, I am petitioning for Judicial Review of the following situation which has arisen. Is it constitutional for a citizen to hold two offices simultaneously, yes or no? The offices in question are Vice-President and Deputy Culture Minister. Article H states:


While neither the Deputy position nor the Vice-President are specifically named, it might be considered to be implied, and should the Culture Minister be unable to carry out their duties, the Deputy may then be required to fill that position.

Therefore, I feel that a Judicial Review is in order so that we may proceed in a forthright manner.

Respectfully,

Comnenus, citizen

Donovan Zoi said:

Request for Judicial review

Let's get started, shall we? In the Presidential thread, President DaveShack has appointed Chieftess as Vice President of Japanatica. While I have no problem with this appointment, I have concerns that the precedent of past DemoGames will dictate that the Vice President position will be allowed to supercede Constitutionally recognized leaders in an implied Chain of Command for gameplay.

Click to expand...

I agree with Donovan Zoi about this. There should be some democratic process for the selection of the VP, since the holder of said position could, given the right turn of events, become our leader. While I have no problem with Chieftess as our VP, this precedent of an appointed VP being higher up in the chain-of-command than an elected official must be looked in to.

Solutions can range from having the Pres candidates selcet a running mate for the elections, having a seperate election for the VP, or setting down the rule of law, that the runner-up of the Pres election shall become the VP.
(Somebody in the Judicial Office READ THIS!!)

Comnenus said:

I am asking that the Judicial Department give its opinion on the constitutionality of a citizen holding two offices simultaneously. The offices in question are Vice-President and Deputy Culture Minister. Article H states:

Code:

Article H.  No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership 
            (President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial 
            Governor) simultaneously.

While a deputy position is not specifically named, it might be considered to be implied, and should the Culture Minister be unable to carry out their duties, the deputy may then be required to fill that position.

If it please the court, would you clarify the constitutionality of holding these two positions simultaneously?

Respectfully,

Comnenus, citizen

Click to expand...

Again, this is an issue. I have to agree with Comnenus that one person should not be able to occupy two posts in the government. While I have no problem with current selection of VP and Deputy CM, this is a flaw in the game that should be fixed. Multiple nominations are ok by me, but multiple offices, in particular such high ones, should be limited to one per person.

Another solution could be that, in the case that the deputy becomes the Minister, he/she/it can hold only one top level position.



my 2 cents.

again, i have no problem with the apointment of the VP, but this should be fixed.

If it please the court, a discussion has begun for an Amendment to Article H. of the Constitution. I hereby request Judicial Review and input of the proposed Amendment.

Proposed Amendment to Article H

Respectfully,

Comnenus, citizen

I was under the impression that the VP was to be the runner-up in the presidential elections?

eyrei said:

I was under the impression that the VP was to be the runner-up in the presidential elections?

Click to expand...

While there may be something lost in the vast mountains of discussion threads, there is nothing on this matter written directly in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, I can't find the VP slot even mentioned by name. Naturally, mine is not a legal opinion.

"Hmmm, .....let see here..." Cyc wanders off to his virtual Law Library and scans part of the entire wall of books.

Point of clarification:

Is a Judicial Review needed before sending a Proposed Article to a poll? In particular, I am referring to Articles E and O.