Call to Service - Chief Justice

Chillaxation

Chillaxation

Warlord
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
231
Location
Los Angeles, California
Citizens!

This is a general call for all citizens that do not currently hold office to PM me to apply for the position of Chief Justice. Anyone reading this and thinking of applying knows that she or he will be coming to office for some hard work during this term. As I review your statements, please summarize your views on the following issues:

1. Rules of order. Love it or hate it, we have absolutely no parliamentary procedure. My and my opponent's proposal for a co-presidency was viewed by some with relief, by many others with dismay. Is there any rule of order hinted at in the Code that provides a guideline points of order in political ebate? Does this, if so, impinge upon the right to free speech?

2. Emergency secretary of state procedures. At what point exactly can the Secretary of State assume the powers of the presidency? To what extent can the Secretary of State assume the powers of the presidency at that point?

3. Emergency presidential appointments of the judiciary. State briefly your view of the actual procedure for emergency judiciary appointments, clarifying for me the if-then conditions of the following process. The president calls for interested citizens, then if what happens do we have a judicial officer? Then if what doesn't happen does the president wait for 72 hours? Then if what happens does the president appoint the officer? Then if what happens do we have a judicial officer?

This, I believe, comprises all the work so far, but you will have a full plate afterwards with other legal reviews coming from increased player attention to the Code. Therefore also briefly state your qualifications for and details about your interest in the job. Since I analyze legal language all day at work, I'm favorably disposed towards having a lawyer, paralegal etc. in the job. Even though real-life experience or legal education is a plus, it is hardly necessary. In-game experience counts for a lot, obviously.

Here is a final note on my attitude toward this appointment: as fun as it might be to roleplay stuffy, legalistic boors, we have a pressing need for some workable bylaws and procedures to come out of this little twist-up. This requires creative thinking and foresight.

I look forward to your applications.
 
I've already received some applications for the Chief Justice position, so I'm going to say that I will not accept any more applications 12 hours after this reply is posted.
 
Chillaxation said:
I've already received some applications for the Chief Justice position, so I'm going to say that I will not accept any more applications 12 hours after this reply is posted.
Click to expand...

Ahh, we see how the president interprets the *72 hour rule*. Given the questions posed to the applicants can we assume one who agrees with this interpretation will be appointed as CJ?

How does the president feel about applicants posting thier responses to the above questions in this public thread? Shouldn't this process be as transparent as possible so citizens can be confident a choice they can endorse will be made?
 
I invite the president to let this go on bit longer-- 12 hours across 24 hours of time zones isnt that much time. Lets get as much quality applicants as possible without excluding someone who might have slept late or had to be in work early.

I also would love to see the responses...more for curiousity than anything.
 
Agreed - I hope to see the candidates and their views made public.

-- Ravensfire
 
If anyone happens to be wondering, I am not a candidate.
 
*quickly defusing the eletronic device primed to go off when Strider started his car*

I am sure i will do well, after all i am a family man
 
donsig said:
Ahh, we see how the president interprets the *72 hour rule*.
Click to expand...

Not that the seventy-two hour rule has any effect when people have already PMd their interest, right, Donsig? :) Or at least, yes, that's how I read it.

Yes, I'm interested in getting a Chief Justice quickly. No, if people think that's improper conduct, I won't collude with someone who thinks I'm doing the right thing. I welcome JR's from anyone that thinks I'm not following procedure to the letter; let's have it all out.

But before we have the JR's, we need a Chief Justice.
 
donsig said:
How does the president feel about applicants posting thier responses to the above questions in this public thread? Shouldn't this process be as transparent as possible so citizens can be confident a choice they can endorse will be made?
Click to expand...

robboo said:
I also would love to see the responses...more for curiousity than anything.
Click to expand...

ravensfire said:
Agreed - I hope to see the candidates and their views made public.

-- Ravensfire
Click to expand...

I have no reason for the process to be conducted in secrecy, but I'd like the applicants to post their responses if they still have them around: if an applicant, for whatever reason, does not want their responses to my questions posted here, then I won't be the one to do it. If any of you guys don't have a copy of your answers and app, let me know here or by PM and I will post it.
 
robboo said:
I invite the president to let this go on bit longer-- 12 hours across 24 hours of time zones isnt that much time. Lets get as much quality applicants as possible without excluding someone who might have slept late or had to be in work early.
Click to expand...

It was twenty-four hours total, actually, but it seems like people are getting really involved in this...and I'm pleased. If bylaws and procedure before this weren't interesting enough for people to run for C/J this term, all the activity will ensure we have a strong judicary from here on out.

But I'm really disinclined towards having this be more drawn-out than it has to be. My interpretation (yes, mine, Donsig) is that the President should appoint quickly, and the people deliberate at length, if necessary. Let's face it: any one of us can call a confirmation poll and we can start the whole thing over again.

The application deadline stated above, okay, doesn't have to be adhered to exactly for someone who has a compelling explanation, such as crazy overtime or a family emergency. I'm pretty sure, however, that I've heard from all interested parties - I think you'd be surprised at how many apps I have received. Think of it this way - do we really want someone as C/J who's just stumbled in at this point in the discussion?

If anyone else has an application, get it together quickly and PM it ASAP. We need a court.
 
Chillaxation said:
But I'm really disinclined towards having this be more drawn-out than it has to be. My interpretation (yes, mine, Donsig) is that the President should appoint quickly, and the people deliberate at length, if necessary. Let's face it: any one of us can call a confirmation poll and we can start the whole thing over again.
Click to expand...

Any one of us could also ask for a judicial review of the 72 hour clause. Note that if that is done and you appoint a CJ before the 72 hours have elapsed then such a JR would put your appointed CJ in the position of having to preside over a case that directly affects him or her. If the CJ participated in such a JR then the court is tainted with conflict of interest. On the other hand, if the appointed CJ chooses to step aside so an impartial judiciary can rule on the legality of the appointment then we have lost more time than is saved by rushing to an appointment. I would be willing to wager quite alot that there will be a request for a JR on the 72 hour clause.

Waiting the full 72 hours before making an appointment puts your appointed CJ in no such predicament. The clause could be looked without any hint of conflict of interest for it could not be argued that your appointment was illegal. The time need not be wasted since you have now given applicants the go ahead to publicly post their responses to your questions. Citizens would actually be able to give you input on the type of CJ they wanted.

And with that, I would like to make my application public.

donsig said:
Mr. President,

I would like to formally apply for the office of Chief Justice. Here are my replies to the answers you posed. I will gladly post these answers in the public thread if that is all right with you. Not sure from your post whether you wanted this public or not.

1. Rules of order. Love it or hate it, we have absolutely no parliamentary procedure. My and my opponent's proposal for a co-presidency was viewed by some with relief, by many others with dismay. Is there any rule of order hinted at in the Code that provides a guideline points of order in political ebate? Does this, if so, impinge upon the right to free speech?

Our constitution and Col are silent on this. Our citizen's assembly is and has always been a no-holds-barred free-for-all (expect when moderators step in to enforce forum rules). Therefore there are no rules governing debate other than those rules of the forum itself which basically tell us to be polite and stay on topic. There are also few rules in place regarding the passage of new laws. There are only specific rules stating the amount of citizen support needed for such changes and the requirement that proposed laws or amendments be brought before the judiciary to ensure they would not conflict with any remaining laws should the new law or amendment be enacted.

It would be interesting to hear what the president has in mind by way of rules of order or parliamentary procedures. From a judicial point of view I would say that any procedures that don't unduly restrict a citizen's right to free speech nor impinge on other constitutional guaranttes would be, well, constitutional. :D

2. Emergency secretary of state procedures. At what point exactly can the Secretary of State assume the powers of the presidency? To what extent can the Secretary of State assume the powers of the presidency at that point?

Unfortunately our laws are also silent on this issue. There was a clause in our CoL that delegated presidential duties to the Secretary of State when the office of President was vacant. This law has been deleted and I think it's removal was an oversight. In any event, there is now no law officialy delegating emergency presidential powers to anyone. There are also laws detailing the powers of each individual office along with a clause that says: The President has all powers not expressly given to another official and not retained by the Citizens Assembly. Placing such power into one office and then not ensuring the office is always filled is a poor way to run a government. In the absence of action by the assembly to correect this oversight, the business of the country must proceed and I would find it difficult to find fault with a Secretary of State who assumed presidential responsibilites in an emergency when we had no president in office. Each instance of such assumption of presidential powers would have to be judged individualy but there is ample evidence from our CoL to assuem the Secretary of State is a second in command after the president.

3. Emergency presidential appointments of the judiciary. State briefly your view of the actual procedure for emergency judiciary appointments, clarifying for me the if-then conditions of the following process. The president calls for interested citizens, then if what happens do we have a judicial officer? Then if what doesn't happen does the president wait for 72 hours? Then if what happens does the president appoint the officer? Then if what happens do we have a judicial officer?

Not sure I understand the grammar here. :confused: My interpretation of the law as written is that in the event of a vacancy in the judiciary the president must publicly solicit applications from non-offcie holding citizens who want to fill the post. If no one applies then the president may appoint anyone (including current office holders) to the job. I would further interpret the law to mean the president must wait 72 hours after his public solicitation before making an appointment in order to give citizens a fair chance to apply. I would further interpret the law to restrict the president to choosing from among the valid applicants responding to the publis solicitation. The law seems rather pointless if interpreted to allow the president to appoint anyone anytime after getting a valid applicant!

Here is a final note on my attitude toward this appointment: as fun as it might be to roleplay stuffy, legalistic boors, we have a pressing need for some workable bylaws and procedures to come out of this little twist-up. This requires creative thinking and foresight.

I understand you need but remind you that it is not the job of the judiciary to create workable bylaws or procedures. If you find an applicant who can write these then I suggest you *hire* him or her to do that. Remember , The Triumvirate may Decree a change in powers or offices of the Cabinet. Create a cabinet position to draft the laws you want and then try to get them enacted. When appointing a Chief Justice look for someone who has the ability to hand down reasonable and coherent decisions on judicial reviews and citizen complaints brought before the judiciary.

Thank you for your time,
former Chief Justice donsig
Click to expand...
 
Can you please send mine back to me Thanks :)

Also as a note i have only interpreted the laws written in our nations offical laws page. It is unreasonable for a person to be expected to live by laws that are not in this thread. No free country forces people to obey laws that are not in the public eye. also a note on Donsigs thing, if CJ was made to rule on a case affecting the apointment procedure, he couldnt be striped of his office as he was apointed prior to the case law being enacted.
 
donsig said:
Any one of us could also ask for a judicial review of the 72 hour clause. Note that if that is done and you appoint a CJ before the 72 hours have elapsed then such a JR would put your appointed CJ in the position of having to preside over a case that directly affects him or her. If the CJ participated in such a JR then the court is tainted with conflict of interest. On the other hand, if the appointed CJ chooses to step aside so an impartial judiciary can rule on the legality of the appointment then we have lost more time than is saved by rushing to an appointment. I would be willing to wager quite alot that there will be a request for a JR on the 72 hour clause.
Click to expand...

Donsig, you are tireless, and I respect that. Nevertheless, the code reads:

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.

The 72 hour clause has nothing to do with how much time I take to make my decision, and everything to do with the amount of time I must spend doing what I don't know, the Code is unclear, if "no such citizen" contacts me.

For the sake of clarification, I consider my post opening the thread to be the declaration of the vacancy of the Chief Justice position.

If anyone thinks that this has a broader meaning, in any cases other than those in which I have no applicants - which disincludes this one, I might say - I'm perfectly willing to sustain a frivolous JR, and the judiciary should be perfectly willing to strike it down, the CJ recusing him or herself or not. Not only will my appointment take more than 72 hours, in the end, it will occur after several "such citizens contact(ed)" me...and no citizens contacting me is the only occasion on which an 72 hour period applies, the entire clause being preceded by a conditional "if."

I understand from your application you read this differently. Considering the fact that - notwithstanding that the clause doesn't apply - the appointment will certainly be made more than 72 hours after the call for applicants, is there some actual procedure within the clause that I overlooked?
 
Hey, interested in being CJ.

1. Rules of order are created to serve the people, and are fluid. Debate should be free and open, within the limits of the rules of CFC, and it is the responsibility (though nto to be enforced by censorship) of all citizens to be responsible.

In regards to bylaws and rules, democracy can not exist without freedom, so I believe in freedom of discussion. In regards to decision making, we need to remember that cases can not be pinned down in advance, because hte law must serve justice and the people, not the other way around. So, even if potentially unconstitutional with a strict, legalistic reading, a more truthful meaning (and this is the philosophy of the Canadian Judiciary, especially our Supreme Court) is to be found by looking at the needs and desires of the time. There was and is no reason to oppose a co-Presidency, save those who would kill the law and leave it dead and unchanging.

2. This is interesting. The law states that the SoS appoints an individual to the presidency in its vacancy. In regards to specifics, I felt that the presidency was full from the moment the agreement for a co-presidency was made. When forced to a new election in which Strider backed out, you would again have been the President. For rare times was a SoS even capable of appointing a president.

Now, it must be understood that the SoS could appoint themselves President, and concurrently resign as SoS. Once again, however, going back to the living tree doctrine, it would be reasonable for in emergency cases the SoS to assume elements of presidential power, or to jointly give them to several people. If necessary, I would be willing to read in words necessary to bring that power to effect if necessary. I know this is a dangerous proposition, and likely an unpopular one, but as I've said time and time again, thelaw must serve the people and serve justice.

3. In regards to this, I find that the 72 hour criterion is a flexible one, as is the appointment of an applicant. Basically, in a normal absence the rules should be followed strictly, in an emergency with some leniency, again, as the needs and desires of the times will change.

In general, I believe in justice and the will of the people. Not even the constitution can stand against these, for they are what animates the constitution. To declare that the constitution is fixed, is to kill it, to take the life out. It is to destroy democracy, by giving a group of people in the past the ability to dictate the future what to do. That is undemocratic, and that is unjust. Were I Chief Justice, I would remember that it is the current society, not the past, that determines what is right and what is wrong. Legalistic and strict constructionist interpretations stand in the way of justice, as they did when dead words were used to prevent a co-presidency.

In solidarity

Curufinwe
 
Content removed - external distractions affecting rational thought ...

-- Ravensfire
 
Chillaxation said:
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.

The 72 hour clause has nothing to do with how much time I take to make my decision, and everything to do with the amount of time I must spend doing what I don't know, the Code is unclear, if "no such citizen" contacts me.
Click to expand...

If no one contacts you then you wait. You could be considering who you might like to appoint. You could even be writing to potential candidates asking them to apply. It's up to you to fill in what you do with the 72 hours. If you think it necessary we could draft a law laying out specifically what the president should be doing with that time.

Chillaxation said:
For the sake of clarification, I consider my post opening the thread to be the declaration of the vacancy of the Chief Justice position.
Click to expand...

So do I. However you've muddied the picture by posting shortly after your call that you would take no more applications.

Chillaxation said:
If anyone thinks that this has a broader meaning, in any cases other than those in which I have no applicants - which disincludes this one, I might say - I'm perfectly willing to sustain a frivolous JR, and the judiciary should be perfectly willing to strike it down, the CJ recusing him or herself or not. Not only will my appointment take more than 72 hours, in the end, it will occur after several "such citizens contact(ed)" me...and no citizens contacting me is the only occasion on which an 72 hour period applies, the entire clause being preceded by a conditional "if."
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it has a much broader meaning than the narrow one you have chosen to apply to it. Throughout the several Civ III demogames a common law has evolved and carried over to this demogame. Much of it has been included in our written constitution and CoL but some parts of it are not yet codified or only partially codified. One aspect of this common law is the tenet that we give citizens ample time to participate in this game. We've combined that with a recognition that we are truly a world wide community and do not all operate on the same time schedule. We also recognize that there is this ethereal thing called real life that many times hinders our forum participation during weekends. Taking all this into account we have settled on a 72 hour wait time for many important things. I believe the 72 hour clause was included in section 8 to give all citizens a fair amount of time to contact the president and express interest in being CJ.

I am a strong believer in following rules as they are written but our laws cannot always be read as though they were computer code. If our CoL were computer code the program wouldn't run because of all the error flags that would pop up. The law covering the appointment of the CJ must be read holistically. Read this way the *if* you speak of clearly refers to the ability to appoint someone who already holds an office and not to the time period.

I'm lad to hear you're willing to sustain frivolous JRs but very unhappy that you seem quite willing to allow the CJ you appoint to preside over the JR that will validate his or her appointment! We travelled that road once in one of the Civ III DGs and it was a very bad time. I can only hope that the CJ you pick will have sense enough to step aside when the JR regarding the CJ appointment is brought before the judiciary. I also hope the judiciary will recognize the importance of dealing with that JR first before conducting any other business.

Chillaxation said:
I understand from your application you read this differently. Considering the fact that - notwithstanding that the clause doesn't apply - the appointment will certainly be made more than 72 hours after the call for applicants, is there some actual procedure within the clause that I overlooked?
Click to expand...

You haven't *overlooked* any actual procedure but you have decided to disregard a possible interpretation and do things that can be considered against the procedure under that interpretation. You're saying that because your appointment will be made 72 hours after the call that your appointment will be legal under either intrepretation. That would have been true had you not publicly posted in this very thread that you would stop taking applications before the 72 hours was up! An integral part of the interpretation I've put forward is that the 72 hour wait time is in place to give citizens ample time to apply. Stifling the application process flies in the face of that interpretation and in my view will taint your appointment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
[CTP] How to set up multiplayer via IPX on Civilization: Call to Power and Call to Power II
Replies
0
Views
120
ninjaboy42099
N
T
Civ 8 And Commanders/1UPT/Doomstacks
Replies
1
Views
398
MutilationWave
MutilationWave
Klaus Hergersheimer
That Other Jimmy Carter Topic
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
caketastydelish
caketastydelish
Birdjaguar
  • Locked
Trump In Charge: Wrecking Ball
14 15 16
Replies
317
Views
17K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Deportation: Millions must go!
4 5 6
Replies
111
Views
6K
Cutlass
C
Back
Top Bottom