Judicial Log

Bootstoots

Deity
Retired Moderator
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Messages
9,436
Location
Mid-Illinois
This is to be a log of all decisions made by Judicial Review, whether they be on constitutional interpretation, PI's, poll review, etc.

Only Judiciary Members may post here, and they may post only to report on Judicial Review.
 
This was a review on the constitutionality of the appointment of Pro-Tem justices, in particular, CivGeneral for Pro-Tem Defender. It was called by bootstoots on June 3, 2003. The Judiciary ruled 2-1 against the constitutionality of these Pro-Tem justices, at least for lower judicial offices.

Majority Opinions
donsig - Chief Justice:
Bootstoots has formally requested a Judicial Review regarding the appointment of pro tem justices. Article C.3 of our constitution charges the Judicial Branch with "interpreting rules" and the following Judicial Review is submitted under the authority of that constitutional clause.

Article C.3.a states that The Chief Justice is the overall head of the Judiciary and can fill in for either lower position. This clause specifically covers the absence of the Public Defendant and Judge Advocate. It is my opinion that this clause was entered into the constitution by the framers to preclude both judicial deputies and pro tem justices as I see no other reason for this clause to exist. Therefore I find the appointment of pro tem justices unconstitutional.

Article D of the constitution states that All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms. It is my opinion that this clause also renders the appointment of pro tem justices unconstitutional.
Peri - Judge Advocate:
Firstly I would like to see more evidence presented on the need to appoint temporary justices.
Is it not more logical and in keeping with the letter of the Constitution to consider such an appointment only when and if the need arises?
Also would not the head of the judiciary consider extra appointments to his department?

Dissenting Opinion
bootstoots - Public Defender:
I hereby find that each Judicial member can appoint a pro-tem judicial member to take their place during a leave of absence. Simply because the CJ can take over for the lower offices doesn't mean that each lower office can't appoint a pro-tem justice to take their place. This also doesn't allow the CJ to be the sole person who can appoint pro-tem justices. There is much precident for the appointment of pro-tem justices in the previous demogames, and the ability of each Judicial member to appoint pro tem judicial members is outlined in the Demogame II CoL. Also, to not allow the Judicial members to appoint a pro-tem justice to take their place is also in effect denying that other positions such as Deputies, Mayors, and other offices in departments exist at all, simply because the Constitution doesn't say that they exist. We adopted a smaller ruleset because the people were to use common sense, doesn't this imply that things not included in the Constitution but also not forbidden should exist? I am calling on our Judiciary, particularly our Judge Advocate, to allow us the right to appoint pro-tem justices.I hereby find that each Judicial member can appoint a pro-tem judicial member to take their place during a leave of absence. Simply because the CJ can take over for the lower offices doesn't mean that each lower office can't appoint a pro-tem justice to take their place. This also doesn't allow the CJ to be the sole person who can appoint pro-tem justices. There is much precident for the appointment of pro-tem justices in the previous demogames, and the ability of each Judicial member to appoint pro tem judicial members is outlined in the Demogame II CoL. Also, to not allow the Judicial members to appoint a pro-tem justice to take their place is also in effect denying that other positions such as Deputies, Mayors, and other offices in departments exist at all, simply because the Constitution doesn't say that they exist. We adopted a smaller ruleset because the people were to use common sense, doesn't this imply that things not included in the Constitution but also not forbidden should exist? I am calling on our Judiciary, particularly our Judge Advocate, to allow us the right to appoint pro-tem justices.
 
This was a review of the PI filed against Donovan Zoi by Chieftess on June 3. Peri moved to dismiss the charges, which were dropped unanimously June 4.

Judge Advocate's Motion
Peri - Judge Advocate:
The Following is the summary of the findings in the above case.


In the absence of any secondary body of law, only the Constitution shall apply in this investigation.
There are only 2 articles of the constitution relevant to this investigation:

C.1.a.
The President shall be the designated player of the game. The President is responsible for following the legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the game.

G.
Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.

My interpretation of these articles is that:
The President is the player of the game and so he is responsible for the moves he makes. He also must follow the legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the game. In addition the President must also act according to the will of the people.

The will of the people in this case is the discussions on the fora, the results of any relevant polls, the instructions in the Instruction thread and decisions taken in the turn chat itself.

It is clear then that the President is responsible for moving the pieces that led to this problem. However to determine whether there was a violation of the Constitution the question that must be answered is did the President act against the will of the people or the instruction of a Leader in the game itself by moving the settler into harms way without an escort?

In the Instruction Thread Chieftess refers to the settler and legion as a pair indicating that they act in concert. At the beginning of the turn (430BC) the settlers and escorts were stacked together. However by (410BC) they had become separated.
Also to consider is that there were no instructions from the Military leadership on this issue in the Instruction Thread. In the absence of any objection from the military on this, I conclude that the military agreed with Chieftess on this.

The President admitted that the Instruction from Chieftess confused him and so settler and legion became separated. As a result he consulted the will of the people regarding this matter. The consensus was for it to resume its journey east. No mention was made of assigning it an escort even though the game save for 410BC was available for all to see. An assumption may have been made by all parties that there would be an escort but clarification was not sought.

In the following section of Turn Chat, there is an exchange between the President and the Deputy Military Leader regarding the Legions in the vicinity of the settler. This occurred in 370BC.

19:09] <@DX_Zoi> Archer comes out of El Armana, right next to our stack of Legions
[19:09] <+peri> have we ga d?
[19:09] <+CivGeneral> Not good, When you want to prevent a GA
[19:09] <@DX_Zoi> no, bu its decision time, I suppose I could send them all into Aureus
[19:09] <+CivGeneral> true
[19:09] <@DX_Zoi> will buy us an extra turn
[19:09] <@Chieftess> What about the workers?
[19:09] <+peri> put them out of the wat
[19:10] <+CivGeneral> But, unit movements needs to be authorized by me
[19:10] <@DX_Zoi> with Lit next turn, it will give us time to discuss
[19:10] <@Chieftess> would we have to sacrifice a warrior?
[19:10] <@DX_Zoi> thats why I asked, CG
[19:10] <+CivGeneral> Ahh
[19:10] <+CivGeneral> Well, we can sacrifice a warrior
[19:10] <+CivGeneral> but that means lossing a potential Upgraded Legonare
[19:10] <@DX_Zoi> we don't have to, CT....I could just have us bunker up and have it advance in
Aureus
[19:11] <@Chieftess> DZ - hurry. My trade hungry family is starting to push me off the computer!
[19:11] <@DX_Zoi> we can decide whether to attack it
[19:11] <@DX_Zoi> mine too...I am bunkering
[19:11] <+CivGeneral> 3Military Instructions: 6 Send the Legonares by that Archer into Aureus

The Military Instruction was to send the legions to Aureus. This decision had no objections. The President carried this out according to procedure. Therefore although the President did not obey the Instruction Post from Chieftess, he sought the will of the people in correcting this and sought the instruction of the Deputy Military Leader regarding the legions that could have offered it protection.

I conclude from the evidence available that although mistakes were made, the will of the people was sought to correct the error and the Deputy Military leader had the final say on the deployment of the Legions.

I recommend that there is no further action. Although Donovan Zoi admits responsibility for his actions, there is insufficient evidence that there was a violation of the Constitution.

Supporting Opinions
bootstoots - Public Defender:
I will second this motion on dismissal of the charges. This should be considered to have No Merit. The charges will be dismissed if the Chief Justice agrees with the JA and the PD.
donsig - Chief Justice:
The Judge Advocate has duly found that there is no plausible evidence of constitutional violation.

The Public Defendant is in agreement.

As Chief Justice I also agree that this case has no merit. The Domestic Leader has no constitutional authority to give orders to military units. There has been no poll requiring settlers to be escorted at all times. While the impending loss of a settler (if it even happens) is unfortunate, this can only be attributed to poor judgement which cannot be unconstitutional! The Judicial Department finds no wrongdoing. Case dismissed!
 
Judicial Review was requested by Octavian on the matter of mid-term appointments or elections of governors on June 12. The Judiciary ruled unanimously that a mid-term election was required to choose a new governor, but there were slight disagreements on technicalities.

Majority Opinions
bootstoots - Public Defender:
I hereby find that, under Article D of our constitution, a special election is required to appoint new leaders. Nominations and elections must occur in order to appoint a new leader, in this case, a governor, mid-term. This finding will hold true for any position received after a term begins because no person ran for a position. I also find that in the case of positions won uncontested, no election is required to fill the position, due to the fact that nominations were posted and only one person ran. (plus, an election where there was only one candidate and Abstain is somewhat ridiculous). I also encourage the Chief Justice to start a Judicial log on the findings of the Judiciary.
donsig - Chief Justice:
Judicial Review has been requested by Octavian on the matter of Governor appointments.

The word appointment in any form is not to be found in our constitution. This in and of itself (under certain interpretations) would not make the appointment of governors unconstitutional. However, article D of the constitution clearly states:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Since the office of governor is a constitutionally recognized office, article D clearly makes the appointment of governors unconstitutional.

Governors must be elected. There is no constitutional stipulation for regular elections as opposed to special elections. So long as there is an election to fill the governor's position and the term is fixed (i.e., stipulated in the election process and fixed as opposed to open ended) then there is no need to decide if said election is regular or special as it would be constitutionally valid, which is all that is required.

Peri - Judge Advocate:
Ruling
Any provinces created during a term of office must have a governor which is elected by the people to serve for a fixed term.
The elections must be held in accordance with custom and precedence.
The term of office cannot exceed the calender month in accordance with the custom and precedence.
 
Judicial Review was requested by CivGeneral on the issue of whether to allow 3rd place candidates in an election to become the new deputy in case of resignation by the current deputy. In this case, CivGeneral placed 3rd in the presidential election and the Vice President, Chieftess, resigned 2-3 weeks later. Review was called on June 19 and the Judiciary ruled 2-1 in favor of allowing 3rd place candidates to become the new deputy.

Majority Opinions
Peri - Judge Advocate:
It is difficult to hold an election for a position which is not recognised by the Constitution. However Civ General polled the 3rd highest number of votes in the recent election. Therefore he does have a popular mandate. It would not be unconstitutional for Civ General to deputise for the President when it is required.
donsig - Chief Justice:
Our third judicial review deals (once again) with the appointment of officials. As in the previous reviews I will quote article D of our constitution:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Given article D, the appointment of leaders is unconstitutional.

While the office of the Vice President is not specifically named in the constitution, the VP is the well recognized deputy to the President. Deputies are also not constitutionally recognized but are an established part of our government. Deputies are the runners-up in the various elections. The theory behind this is that if the candidate chosen by the people becomes unavailable for the office in question then the candidate recieving the second most votes should be considered the people's choice to step in and take over the office. It is the inclusion of the various deputies in the elections that makes their position constitutional.

The use of deputies is an efficient (and constitutional) means of filling vacancies that arise mid-term. The efficiency arises from the fact that seperate, special mid-term elections are avoided. An appointment and confirmation process is also avoided. Vacanies are filled promptly in this manner.

Extending this idea to fill deputy positions is not only constitutional and efficient, it just plain makes sense. Therefore my finding is that when a deputy position is vacated the candidate who recieved the next largest number of votes (after the absent deputy) should automatically be moved into the vacant deputy spot.

Given the findings of the three judicial members, our ruling is that CivGeneral (the recipient of the next number of votes after Chieftess in the recent Presidential election) is now the Vice President, no confirmation poll being required.


Dissenting Opinion
bootstoots - Public Defender:
I believe that the Vice President should be appointed in the same manner as any other deputy (as well as chat reps and other offices) when an office is vacant after the term starts...by appointment and a confirmation poll. Therefore, I find that the third place candidate in an election does not automatically become the new deputy (in this case the Vice President) and that a new Vice President must be appointed and confirmed in the same manner as any other post-election deputy appointee.

NOTE: I do want CG to be the new VP, but I believe that he must be appointed and confirmed.
 
Judicial Review was requested by bootstoots on June 25 on the appointment of Octavian X as Deputy Governor of Aventine Province by Plexus despite the fact that AJ was the first runner-up in the provincial elections. The Judiciary ruled unanimously that this appointment was unconstitutional.

Majority Opinions
bootstoots - Public Defender:
I hereby find that Octavian's appointment as Deputy Governor is unconstitutional based on previous findings and rulings. For instance, in our first Judicial Review, the Judiciary found that the Public Defender could not appoint a Pro-Tem defender in his place during a vacation. In our third review, the Judiciary decided unanimously that a governor had to be elected rather than appointed during a mid-term election. And in our fourth Judicial Review, the ascendance of the third-place candidate to the deputy's spot was found to be constitutional.

In accordance with custom and precidence, the Deputy has always been the first runner-up in an election, unless a person was running uncontested. This is how it has been done, to my knowledge To find against that will throw the system out entirely, making so that the VP among others is a gift position. And if the third-place candidate ascends to the deputy's position in the event of a vacancy, then the second place candidate could ascend to the leader's position, making so that the second-place candidate would automatically be the deputy, the one who can fill in an office in the event of a vacancy. However, in this case, the Deputy was appointed despite the fact that AJ placed second in the elections. If AJ declined, either Civanator or Sir John, the third place candidates (tied) would become the new deputy. Therefore, there is no basis for the appointment of a deputy when the elections were contested.

donsig - Chief Justice:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am calling Judicial Review on the issue of whether Plexus can appoint Octavian as Deputy Governor of Aventine Province...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Posted by bootstoots)

Article D (the least read article in our constitution) reads:

All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

While it is true that deputies are not addressed in our constitution they are an integral part of our government. Previous judicial reviews have upheld their existence and have begun to define a 'chain of command', so to speak based on election results. In line with previous judicial reviews I concur with the review posted by bootstoots.

I find the appointment of Octavian X (a fine, upstanding citizen) as deputy governor to be unconstitutional. In the absense of Governor Plexus, Almightyjosh would be considered next in line to run the province. In both their absences, Civanator and Sir John would be next in line. Since these last two tied in the recent election Governor Plexus should post a run-off poll between these two to establish seniority should he and Almightyjosh not be available.

Peri - Judge Advocate:
I refer to previous rulings on Article D. Not that I am tired of addressing the same points over and over.
Here is another post by Peri that states his opinion in more detail:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Since the Constitution does not recognize deputies and the Governor's Office is already filled by Plexus, I don't see any reason not to continue following DG2 precedent for our deputy selection. Since deputies are not recognized by our Constitution, there is no Deputy's Office.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Constitution recognises Leaders only. In the absence of Plexus, his appointed choice would become governor. The Deputy Governor would become the Governor without having been elected in the proper manner. This is where Article D comes in. The clear bias of a confirmation poll predisposes the citizens to vote yes.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and by the way, AJ has also resigned as Domestic Leader due to continuing computer problems, so am I to assume that the position is now Fionn's with no confirmation necessary? If I am reading your previous ruling correctly, that is precisely what would happen. Can you honestly tell me with certainty that this process reflects the will of the people?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a precedent that may be relevant here. In the recent Trade election Boots polled third but because CT declined the position, Octavian became Leader. In the absence of Octavian would there have been any objection to Boots becoming Trade Leader even though he polled third? I think unlikely mainly because CT declined immediately upon election and Boots was considered Deputy Trade Leader during Term 2. What I am trying to say is that in the election process, the highest polled candidate who accepts the position becomes Leader. It is possible due to other election results that the eventual Leader for a certain position could actually poll third or lower.
All I can do is interpret the Constitution as it is laid out.
Perhaps you should sponsor a law to clarify Article D then we wont have these confusions.
 
This review is with special reference to what constitutes legal instruction

From the Chief Justice

C.1.a
The President shall be the designated player of the game. The President is responsible for following the legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the game.

The Judiciary does not wish to narrowly define the broad scope of the Constitution.

This opinion is in two parts.

It is the opinion of the Chief Justice that the Designated Player is entitled to make key executive decisions which may or may not contradict with another Leader's instruction since the DP is the Leader of the nation for that period of play. Article C.1 itself coroborates this opinion.
'The Executive Branch is headed by the President, the overall Leader of the land...'

However if an instruction is not contrary to the Constitution or beyond the remit of the Leader and is made clear to the DP then it can be considered legal.

The Chief Justice understands that these opinions can be regarded as contradictory themselves. However the Constitution is a broad framework for government and not a meticulously defined body of law.

From the Public Defender

C.1.a
The President shall be the designated player of the game. The President is responsible for following the legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the game.


This article of the constitution says nothing of what the DP should do if there isn't a proper instruction from a head of a department. I see that there are three ways to go from here:

1.) Have the DP poll the TC participants as to what to do.

2.) have the DP make the decision based on what s/he thinks is in the best interest of the people.

3.) End the turnchat.

Three is silly and tedious. Ending the turnchat would bog down the demogame and drive people away. I think that, although two sounds good, it can be used improperly. "In the best intrests of the people" is a very general and ambiguous statement.
It is the opinion of the Public Defender that the first option is the best option in reguards to missing/ non-predicted instructions. The DP should take a quick poll of all those listening in the TC as to what to do. He should give two or three options and wait until a majority has answered. This way, the DP cannot abuse his position as the only one playing. This way, there is democracy in the TC; even if it is only among a few.


From the Judge Advocate
JA review on C.1.a:

The President shall be the designated player of the game. The President is responsible for following the legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the game.

This says that the President is DP of the game, but he will listen to the legal instructions of Leaders or their representatives during game play. But it does not say what the DP should do if a proper instruction was not given. I see multiple ways to handle this:

1) Ask the Leader of the department concerning the matter what he/she would want to be done. If the Leader is absent their Deputy will be asked. If both Leader and Deputy are absent the Chat Rep will be asked. That person should also listen to the citizenry. The DP should then follow the instruction.

2) In the case that all three of the above are absent, there should be a vote of the all the citizenry present at the turn chat and the majority for a option will be taken.

2a) If it is a closed turn session, the president has these options:

A. Stop game play

B. Go to the forum and post for an answer. If there is no reply in 15 minutes procede to C.

C. Make a decision based on what he/she best thinks is the will of the citizenry.
---

3) Stop the chat

Stopping the chat is an extreme situation and should only be done if the DP sees that no decision can be made with the citizenry.

The rulings of the Judiciary in this matter are too complex to be summarised simply. There appears to be enough scope to allow many interpretations. This is due to the ambiguity of the Constitution in this matter. I recommend that the Legislative remedy this issue.
 
Does the Domestic Leader have the Constitutional authority to overrule Provincial Governors?

From the Chief Justice
Fionn has requested a Judicial Review into whether the Domestic Leader has the constitutional authority to overrule Provincial Governors.

There is no specific article which clearly outlines the hierarchy in government.
However Article C1 states

The Executive Branch is headed by the President, the overall Leader of the land, and shall include a Council of Leaders, each of whom heads a department that is responsible for one major facet of the country. Each of these Leaders will be generally responsible for the items found under the respective Advisor in the Civilization III game and esoteric aspects that fall under their department name.

Therefore the Domestic leader is responsible for all aspects of the demogame which fall within the remit of the Domestic advisor in the game proper.
This indicates that Provincial governors are in fact subordinate to the Domestic Leader.
Also the terms Province and Provincial Governor are implicitly subordinate to the national government.

It seems I need to clarify my ruling.
I said that C.1 points to the Domestic Leader being in charge of all domestic matters. Also the implication is that the National Government is superior to Provincial Government. There is no indicatin in the Constitution that Provincial Governors are equal in status to members of the Executive with special reference to the Domestic Leader.
No other member of the Judiciary has ruled on this so this Judicial Review is incomplete and can not be used to justify action.


From the Public Defender
It is the opinion of the Public Defender that the Governers need to be independent of control from the Domestic Department. It would give the Domestic leader almost autocratic power over the governers if s/he had control over the queues.
Now, if there were some form of a check on the domestic leader's override of governer's build queues, then I would be all for it. Checks and Balances are what's used in the US government to keep the three branches in check. Let's have one for this.


From the Judge Advocate
While the Domestic Leader does have authority in all domestic areas, Governors are responsible for their own build queues, and the Domestic Leader should post a citizen poll to make an over-ride of the queue, because he could be acting against the will of the citizenry by over-riding in a different way.

the majority opionon of this review is that the Domestic Leader cannot overrule Provincial Governors
 
Originally posted by Octavian X
I request that the judiciary review the 'new CoL'. I simply wish to know what would be needed to under the current constitution to create a new CoL. Would this be considered something like a constitutional amendment, because it effectivel adds on to the CoL, or would it be considered passed under it's own definition of an amendment to itself?



From the Chief Justice
Section E gives a detailed account of how to pass a law. Since this has been passed this procedure must be followed to pass future laws. Neither B nor E affect articles of the Constitution so can not be classed as ammendments. This is my opinion only.


From the Judge Advocate
JA review on CoL:
Section E does give a detailed account on how to get a law passed. Since It was passed, future laws will have to be passed as it states, but I feel, the rest of the CoL should be excluded, as they are new Articles of the CoL, and not amedning Sections B or E


From the Public Defender
As for the Judicial Review of the CoL, I fully agree with Peri: Because the CoL is not ammending the Constitution, it does not need to follow the same procedure as an ammendment.

It appears that the unanimous opinion of this Review is that Laws must be passed according to the procedure set out under Section E of the new code of Laws
 
Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would like to request Judicial Review on parts of the Constitution. It makes several refrences to the President being the person in charge of playing the save; does this by extension include all DP's, or is the President the only one who can play the save under any circumstance? In several cases this game, notably toward the end of Shaitan's term and at least once under DZ, people lower in the informal Chain of Command have played the save. I would like the Judiciary to rule on whether it is legal for people other than the President to play the save in the President's absence.

The Judiciary agreed to this ruling unanimously.
Chief justice: Peri
Judge Advocate: Ravensfire
Public defender: Zorven


Fanatica's current body of law does not recognize the concept of a "chain of command" (CoC). Rather, it states (Constitution C.1.a) "The President shall be the designated player of the game. " This means the President, and only the President, is assigned the responsibility of being the designated player (DP) of the game.

It is our opinion that a Leader is permitted to delegate duties to help them in accomplishing their tasks. Note that this does not excuse the Leader from the responsibilities of their position.

We find that the President may designate a person or persons to serve in the role of DP in place of the President. We find that in the event of an unexpected absence of the DP, or the inability of the DP to play the game, there is no legal structure for another person to take over the role of DP, unless explicitly designated to do so by the President.

We note that custom in this, and prior DG's, does recognize a CoC, and the official role of the Deputy position just for such situations. The Judiciary recommends to the Legislature that the issue of Deputies and a Chain of command be considered.
 
Originally posted by Eklektikos

I would like a review to determine whether the DP can, in cases where instructions have been posted that cannot conceivably conform to Article G by anything other than sheer luck, use his discretion as to how closely they should be followed.

The Judiciary were unanimous in this ruling.

Chief Justice: Peri
Judge Advocate: Ravensfire
Public Defender: Zorven

From the Constitution, Article C.1.a - "The President shall be the
designated player of the game. The President is responsible for
following the legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the
game."

The President (and by extention the DP) must follow all legal
instructions while playing the save. As the DP, they are responsible
for all decisions that they make.
[end]

Commentary
[begin]
We understand our ruling isn't quite as blunt as some might like. We
have included this commentary to make sure everyone understands what
the ruling means.

The DP is responsible for following the legal instructions given to
them. If they feel an instruction is not legal, they have three
options.

One, follow the instruction anyway. They cannot be faulted for this,
only the person giving them the instruction.

Two, ignore the instruction. They are potentially exposing themself
to a PI over this.

Three, stop the turn chat and take the question to the forum.
 
Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would like to ask for a Judicial Review on the validity of the poll posted to remove the Culture Department. I am curious to see if the elimination of the Culture Department violates Section C.1 of the constitution:
Code:
1. The Executive Branch is headed by the President, the overall 
      Leader of the land, and shall include a Council of Leaders, each of 
      whom heads a department that is responsible for one major facet of 
      the country. Each of these Leaders will be generally responsible for 
      the items found under the respective Advisor in the Civilization III 
      game and esoteric aspects that fall under their department name.
I would be of the opinion that an elimination of the Culture Department does not violate that part of the Constitution because it does not specifically define what offices there should be in the Executive Branch. It does state that each department is responsible for the items under the respective Advisor in the game but not that all Advisors have to have an office cover them. The Cultural Leader's responsibilities can be assumed by the respective governors without violating the Constitution.

I will await the response of the Judiciary.


The Judiciary were unanimous in this ruling.

Chief Justice: Peri
Judge Advocate: Ravensfire
Public Defender: zorven

This section of the Constitution states that EACH Leader is responsible for ONE major component of government and that each Leader's responsibilities are represented by the corresponding Advisor in the game proper. This text, when considered with the orginal purpose behind the drafting of the Constitution, and the so far uncontested interpretation of it, demands that we declare that there shall be six Leaders, one for each Advisor in the game proper.
 
This post represents the ruling of the full Judiciary. The opinion within was unanimously agreed to by:

Chief Justice zorven
Judge Advocate CivGeneral
Public Defender Vander

Judicial Review Request:

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Time to stir up some trouble...I was looking at the last Judicial Review conducted (Review DG3-T4-3) and I realized that it itself should come under review. The only review posted before the end of the term was the review by Chief Justice Peri. However, it is still considered binding for some reason. CoL A.1.a states the following:
Code:
b. Judicial Review is binding if 2 of 3 Judiciary members agree with the review
However, only one Judicial member reviewed on it before the term was over. Therefore, I request that the Judiciary strike that review down as nonbinding. The review can be found here

Though the term length is not defined in our ruleset, it should be considered to be one calendar month stretching from the beginning of a month GMT to the end of that month GMT because of custom and precident. If the Judiciary reviews that the review is binding because the term length and beginning and end is not set, this will open a large can of worms.

Thank you.


Facts:

Judicial Review DG3-T4-3 was initiated August 30 GMT.
Chief Justice Peri posted the opinion of the Judiciary on August 31 GMT.
Chief Justice Peri's post included the text:

The Judiciary were unanimous in this ruling.

Chief Justice: Peri
Judge Advocate: Ravensfire
Public Defender: Zorven

Judge Advocate ravensfire posted in the forums on Sep 1 GMT and Public Defender zorven on Sep 2 GMT that they did, in fact, agree with the opinion as posted by Chief Justice Peri.

Our Opinion:

Section A.1.b of the Code of Laws states that a Judicial Review opinion is binding if 2 of 3 members of the Judiciary agree with said opinion. The Code of Laws is silent on the method in which this agreement is to be communicated to the citizenry. It was the practice of the Judiciary in Term 4 that the Chief Justice make one post in the forum on behalf of the full Judiciary when posting the opinion of the Judiciary in response to a request for Judicial Review. It was also the practice that the Judge Advocate and Public Defender post messages in the forum, after the Chief Justice's post, to publicly state that the post made by the Chief Justice was accurate. It is our opinion that the post made by the Chief Justice on behalf of the full Judiciary is sufficient to communicate the agreement of the remaining members of the Judiciary. The posts made by the Judge Advocate and the Public Defender are "after the fact". They are not necessary, but rather function as a polite confirmation of the Chief Justice's post. Therefore, we rule that the Judiciary's opinion was posted before the term expired and Judicial Review DG3-T4-3 stands.
 
A Judicial Review was requested on who is the deputy for an office.
Citzen A was elected to two offices, declining office X. Citizen B,
finishing second in the polling, become the holder of office X.
Citizen C finishes 3rd in the polling. Who is the deputy for office
X.

We find that a citizen, when elected to an office and subsequently
declines that office, has resigned from that office. The citizen no
longer has any claim on that office due to the election. Thus, the
citizen finishing in 2nd place becomes the office holder, with the
citizen finishing in 3rd place becoming the deputy.
 
Top Bottom