CoS Discussion: Judicial Review

ravensfire · Dec 22, 2003

DG2 Judicial Review process:

Code:

   6.   Judicial Review 
       A.   A quorum requires the attendance of all 3 members of the judiciary. 
       B.   Review of proposed amendments and laws. 
           1.   2 of 3 must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict 
           with existing amendments, laws and standards. 
           2.   If a proposal is rejected due to conflicts it is returned to the 
           Congress with detail of the conflicts noted. This proposal may 
           then be edited and resubmitted for Review. 
           3.   If a proposal is approved through Judicial Review it is posted 
           as a Legislative poll(s) by a member of the Judiciary. 
       C.   Review of proposed standards. 
           1.   2 of 3 must agree that the proposal does not conflict with 
           existing amendments, laws and standards. 
           2.   If a standard is rejected due to conflicts it is returned to the 
           sponsor with detail of the conflicts noted. This proposal may 
           then be edited and resubmitted for Review. 
               A.   If the standard is already in the polling process the 
               Legislative Council Vote is declared VOID. 
               B.   If the standard has completed the polling process it is 
               revoked and removed from the Code of Standards. 
       D.   Interpretation and clarification of existing amendments, laws and 
       standards. 
           1.   2 of 3 must agree on the interpretation or clarification. 
           2.   The interpretation/clarification is then entered into a Judicial Log 
           for reference. 
               A.  The Judicial Log may be referenced for further 
               interpretation or clarification but may not be used as 
               criteria for review of proposed amendments, laws and 
               standards. 
       E.   Dismissal of investigations 
           1.   3 of 3 must agree that the accusation shows "No Merit". 
           2.   Specific reasoning for a judgement of "No Merit" must be 
           provided.

NOTE: The DG2 process is in the CoL.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire · Dec 22, 2003

I am proposing both a new Judicial Review process, and to move this to the CoS where I feel it belongs.

The process below is roughly that followed by Peri, zorven and Fier in DG3 (Term 4 and on). It encourages public comments, then allows the Judiciary to meet privately to discuss the matter and produce either a unanimous opinion, or a Majority and Minority opinion. This prevents the problems of some reviews where three seperate answers with no clear definitive statement from the court was provided.

Code:

1.  Judicial Review of an Existing Law
  I. Request
    A. Any citizen may request a Judicial Review by posting the request in
       the Judicial Thread or via PM to any Justice.
      1. The request should contain the question and the specific law involved.
      2. If the request sent via PM, the citizen should remain anonymous unless 
         they choose otherwise.
    B. The Chief Justice shall post a notice in the Judicial Thread that a Judicial 
       Request has been filed.  This post should contain a summary of the Request.

  II. Public Discussion
    A. The Chief Justice shall create a new thread in the Citizens Forum 
       entitled Judicial Review  Term <term number> - Request <request number 
       for that term>
    B. The first post shall contain the formal question and law involved
      1. The Chief Justice may rewrite the question so long as the meaning 
         is not altered. Any changes should be discussed with the requestor.
    C. All Citizens are then invited to discuss the question.
    D. Justices are to post questions, but not conclusions.
    E. Discussion continues until the Chief Justice declares arguments over.
      1. The Associate Justices may overrule if they both agree to do so. They 
         may also declare halt to arguments if they both agree and Chief Justice 
         is not willing to end the discussions.

  III. Judicial Discussion
    A. The Judiciary shall then meet privately to discuss review
    B. The Judiciary shall produce a Majority opinion, and if needed, a 
       Minority opinion.
    C. The Chief Justice shall post both opinions, including the signers 
       of each, in the Judicial Thread and the Judicial Log.
      1. Each Justice should post a confirmatory message which may also 
         include an explanatory note. Any such note is not part of the official record.
    D. All Judicial Reviews are part of COUNTRY_NAMEs body of Law, and may 
       be used for future decisions unless overridden by future Laws.

  IV. General
    A. All proceedings should go forth in an expedient manner.
    B. All proceedings started under one Court shall continue with that Court 
       through the conclusion of that proceeding.

2.  Judicial Review of a Proposed Law
  I.  As citizens, the members of the Judiciary should be active during any
      discussion of a new law.
  II.  Once a final proposal has been made and agreed upon for a proposed Law,
      the Chief Justice should post in the discussion thread that the Judiciary
      will review the law and the text of the law to be reviewed.
  III.  The Judiciary will then meet privately to discuss the law.
  IV.  If the proposed law passes review, the Chief Justice shall post the poll
       for the proposed law in the Poll sub-forum.
  V.  If the proposed law does not pass review, the Chief Justice shall post in
      the discussion thread the reasons for the rejection.
    A.  Should a poll already be posted for this proposal, the poll is deemed void.

My apologies for the numbering - it's a bit off. I remembered the review of proposed law at the last minute, and forgot the numbering.

-- Ravensfire

Cyc · Dec 22, 2003

2.IV. might want an .A section describing what constitutes a proposed law passing review. You have that above for review of existing law, but not in section 2.

ravensfire · Dec 22, 2003

Originally posted by Cyc
2.IV. might want an .A section describing what constitutes a proposed law passing review. You have that above for review of existing law, but not in section 2.

Good point!

Something like:

Code:

  IV.  If the proposed law passes review, the Chief Justice shall post the poll
       for the proposed law in the Poll sub-forum.
    A.  A majority of justices must approve of the proposed law for it to pass review.

-- Ravensfire

Cyc · Dec 22, 2003

Works for me. I know it's kinda silly, but it should be documented.

Bootstoots · Dec 22, 2003

This proposal does work for me. I do understand why this would be a better method than our previous Judicial Review method, where there was a posting of opinion by the Justices immediately with a minimum of discussion. I think that 2.IV.A should be changed slightly to read something like:

Code:

A. A majority of justices must agree that the proposed
law does not conflict with any existing law or constitutional 
article for it to pass review

The way it read before, it could be interpreted as saying that the Justices could throw a proposed law out if they simply didn't approve of it, even if there were no rule conflicts.

Cyc · Dec 22, 2003

Works for me, Boots.

Peri · Dec 22, 2003

I object to Article 2 on the grounds that it gives the Judiciary legislative oversight. The citizens have the right to make bad laws and have them struck down in JR.

Octavian X · Dec 23, 2003

I agree with Peri, I think. Article 2 should be reworded to specifically state that that process is only to be used to ensure that proposed laws do not conflict with others.

Peri · Dec 23, 2003

You read me right Oct. Article 2 needs to specify that and only that.

Cyc · Dec 23, 2003

Well, I don't really see a need for 2.I, but as far as your concerns for approval based on conflict with other laws, Bootstoots revised proposal for 2.IV.A covers that. If you want to cut out 2.I that's fine, but I don't see a problem with 2.II through 2.V.

Peri · Dec 23, 2003

My concern is that it is not watertight. Unless I have misread, a law can be stopped by the Justices and the people can't do a thing about it. Boot's revision just says how a law can pass review. It does not stop Justices from blocking one.

I believe, as you all know, that the Judiciary should not participate in passing laws. If a law is made which conflicts with the Constitution then a JR will invalidate it. However there will be ocassions when a law is designed to conflict with an existing law because it is designed to replace or modify it. Therefore I just propose that new laws are subject to the standard JR which is in essence want Oct has suggested.

Cyc · Dec 23, 2003

Uh, yeah, you're right Peri. But that is a huge waste of time. This is the Demogame not r/l. Having the Judiciary sit around while the Congress tries to put a misguided law or amendment together and then lets everyone vote on it only to take the law into their chambers (after someone else has requested it) and laughingly dismiss the entire effort as unconstitutional in a Judicial Review will be a joke.

I commend you on what you're trying to put forward here, but as I said, we have better things to do with the two and a half weeks you want to tie up with your process.

Several times throughout the ruleset that has been created here, the notion that the Judiciary determines the Constitutionality of Laws has been everpresent. We have not said that they will strike down laws at will. They must post there rulings as to why proposed laws are unconstitutional and if we disagree with them we can vote them out next Term.

Peri · Dec 23, 2003

You are of course right. There are much more important things we can argue about. :lol:

If the apathy levels for making laws during the game are anywhere near what they were last time, this whole process won't even be needed.

ravensfire · Dec 23, 2003

Peri,

Your concerns are valid, and should have been addressed in the first version. Octavian is correct in that the review of a proposed law is to make sure that there are no obvious conflicts or problems with existing law that are not documented within the proposal (repealing or changing an existing law).

This review is not about is this a "good" law, but if it appears technically correct. Even if there are obvious loopholes, but no conflicts, the Judiciary should allow the proposal to go to poll.

Anyone have a good suggestion on the wording of 2.IV then? Boots has one idea - any others?

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire · Dec 26, 2003

Unless I see anything otherwise, I'm planning on polling this later tonight .

Code:

1.  Judicial Review of an Existing Law
  I. Request
    A. Any citizen may request a Judicial Review by posting the request in
       the Judicial Thread or via PM to any Justice.
      1. The request should contain the question and the specific law involved.
      2. If the request sent via PM, the citizen should remain anonymous unless 
         they choose otherwise.
    B. The Chief Justice shall post a notice in the Judicial Thread that a Judicial 
       Request has been filed.  This post should contain a summary of the Request.

  II. Public Discussion
    A. The Chief Justice shall create a new thread in the Citizens Forum 
       entitled Judicial Review  Term <term number> - Request <request number 
       for that term>
    B. The first post shall contain the formal question and law involved
      1. The Chief Justice may rewrite the question so long as the meaning 
         is not altered. Any changes should be discussed with the requestor.
    C. All Citizens are then invited to discuss the question.
    D. Justices are to post questions, but not conclusions.
    E. Discussion continues until the Chief Justice declares arguments over.
      1. The Associate Justices may overrule if they both agree to do so. They 
         may also declare halt to arguments if they both agree and Chief Justice 
         is not willing to end the discussions.

  III. Judicial Discussion
    A. The Judiciary shall then meet privately to discuss review
    B. The Judiciary shall produce a Majority opinion, and if needed, a 
       Minority opinion.
    C. The Chief Justice shall post both opinions, including the signers 
       of each, in the Judicial Thread and the Judicial Log.
      1. Each Justice should post a confirmatory message which may also 
         include an explanatory note. Any such note is not part of the official record.
    D. All Judicial Reviews are part of COUNTRY_NAMEs body of Law, and may 
       be used for future decisions unless overridden by future Laws.

  IV. General
    A. All proceedings should go forth in an expedient manner.
    B. All proceedings started under one Court shall continue with that Court 
       through the conclusion of that proceeding.

2.  Judicial Review of a Proposed Law
  I.  As citizens, the members of the Judiciary should be active during any
      discussion of a new law.
  II.  Once a final proposal has been made and agreed upon for a proposed Law,
      the Chief Justice should post in the discussion thread that the Judiciary
      will review the law and the text of the law to be reviewed.
  III.  The Judiciary will then meet privately to discuss the law.
  IV.  If the proposed law passes review, the Chief Justice shall post the poll
       for the proposed law in the Poll sub-forum.
    A. A majority of Justices must agree that the proposed
        law does not conflict with any existing law or constitutional 
        article for it to pass review
  V.  If the proposed law does not pass review, the Chief Justice shall post in
      the discussion thread the reasons for the rejection.
    A.  Should a poll already be posted for this proposal, the poll is deemed void.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire · Dec 27, 2003

Ratification poll has been posted here.

-- Ravensfire

Bill_in_PDX · Dec 30, 2003

I voted NO. I have several issues with this direction of law.

1) If we are going to have discussion threads for judicial review now, then the judiciary themselves should be allowed to state their opinion in them. Otherwise the judicial review is nothing more than looking for citizen consensus. Now normally that is well and good, but in this case, the judiciary is not commenting on the appropriateness of a law, but simply if it is unconstitutional. So the citizen discussion might proceed to a point where there is clear consensus amongst the populace, but the judiciary may need to overrule the law anyhow. This would mean that the CJ and friends are now not following the will of the people. Creating a conflict of laws. They cannot win either way. This is one of the reasons that Judicial Reviews were kept short and sweet.

2) The judiciary should post their opinions publically, and not as a consolidated document, in the judiciary thread. From there the CJ would normally add a blub to the judicial log.

3) On what levels are judicial reviews part of the law food chain? Constitutional? Code of Laws? Standards? The wording implies that these reveiws can now make laws, which is a huge NO NO in my book. The reviews should only be used to clarify an existing law on constitutionality of a proposed law.

Cyc · Dec 30, 2003

Your points are all valid, Bill. First, let me say that this legislation if for the CoS, and considered a Standard or guideline, not a law. Wording in the CoS is the easiest to change of any wording in the three books, as I'm sure you're aware.

This proposal was created by Ravensfire and then reshaped through PMs from Ravensfire to me and others. With our lack of time before the games start, I didn't really see any major problems that couldn't be worked out. But you are correct in certain areas with your critique.

I agree that the JR's should be done in the manner previously used for other Demogames, but this DG seems to want to shake things up a bit and try different approaches (too bad we didn't try that with the nation's name).

I also agree that each Justice should post their own opinion. This would eliminate the confirmation post.

In regards to your last paragraph, I believe a JR can cover all the wording of all three books, in that if a Standard conflicts with a law, or a law conflicts with an Article of the Constitution, then an opinion in the JR can stop this or have it changed. As far as the wording about these JR's being law, I believe what Ravensfire meant was that opinions posted in the Judicial Log would stand as precedent in interpreting laws in future rulings. This would not neccessarily make them law, just carry a lot of weight in determining said future rulings. Of course I'm sure you're aware of this point, I was just trying to do a bit of clarifying.

CoS Discussion: Judicial Review

ravensfire

Member of the Opposition

ravensfire

Member of the Opposition

Cyc

Looking for the door...

ravensfire

Member of the Opposition

Cyc

Looking for the door...

Bootstoots

Deity

Cyc

Looking for the door...

Peri

Vote early and vote often

Octavian X

is not a pipe.

Peri

Vote early and vote often

Cyc

Looking for the door...

Peri

Vote early and vote often

Cyc

Looking for the door...

Peri

Vote early and vote often

ravensfire

Member of the Opposition

ravensfire

Member of the Opposition

ravensfire

Member of the Opposition

Bill_in_PDX

Grumpy Submariner

Cyc

Looking for the door...

Similar threads