Juducial Review Discussion Thread- JR10

Judicial Review 10 is A judicial review which was requested by Swiss Empire asking whether confirmation polls need to be 48 hours long, and whether the confirmation poll of Curufinwe as Chief Justice, posted by Donsig, was legal.
The law cited is

VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office. This is a private poll, asking the question "Should <citizen name> serve as <office>?", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll should last for 48 hours. If a majority of citizens who vote, excluding abstain, vote no, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term

Click to expand...

Since i was not given a chance to argue this before, here we go.

With this arguement i hope to also persuade my doubters that i am capable of be a justice.

Point A. In the constitution, it specifically states

A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types[\QUOTE]

The Code of Laws goes on to specify the PROCEDURES AND RESTRICTIONS for posting a Confirmation Poll in

VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office. This is a private poll, asking the question "Should <citizen name> serve as <office>?", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll should last for 48 hours. If a majority of citizens who vote, excluding abstain, vote no, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term

Click to expand...

I feel that it can not be made anymore plain.

Point B. To answer the arguement that it could be see as

IIC. All official polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days to be binding, however it is recommended that binding polls be open from 3 to 4 days if possible.

Click to expand...

is a means to go another way on this. This law is in the Code of Laws, and since the constitution supercedes the Code of Laws, this should be disregarded in this case. In both Article C, Section 4 and Article A, Section 2 Subsection A Rules which are more specific on a given point may clarify more general points without being contradictory, the constituition mandates that the specific form for a Confirmation poll must be followed.

Point C. As for the arguement made by Ravensfire

Ravensfire said:

Based on this, the word "should" probably doesn't belong here, but it does, in the context, introduce variability in the length of the poll.

Click to expand...

, i present to you the following. To get technical, the word should is used in auxiliary function to express a request in a polite manner or to soften direct statement, to express condition, to express obligation, propriety, or expediency, to express futurity from a point of view in the past, or to to express what is expected. So technically, it should have been 48 hours. I beleived it was used to express a request in a polite manner or to soften direct statement, but a case could be made for either one of them, such as to express condition, to express obligation, express what is expected. All of these definitions come from Merriam Websters dictionary.

I hope this arguement changes ravensfires mind, persuades Veera and Curu, and shows the citizienry that i was in the right with my decsitions. Don't always beleive what you are told by second-hand sources. Look here or at the thread and make your own decision. Unlike Donsig, i checked and double checked the Law and gave reasons why. When i gave legal basis for my actions i was riducled, not refuted. I hope this convinces you that i deserve a chance to be a justice. I urge all of you to form your own opinions

Click to expand...

Hmm,

Isn't there a forum rule about opening self-serving threads?

Anyway, here's a rebuttal.

The law as written says:
This poll should last for 48 hours.

Here are two different ways this could be interpreted. Both are valid.

1. This poll should be at least 48 hours.
2. This poll must last for exactly 48 hours.

Taking interpretation #1, what is the purpose of a poll which must be open at least a certain amount of time? Clearly this is to allow people a chance to see the poll and vote. Does a poll open for a longer time period help, or does it hurt? Clearly it helps, as even more people will have that opportunity to vote.

Taking interpretation #2, what is the purpose of having a poll open an exact amount of time? To provide a definite ending time for the poll, because such a time is required for reasons external to the poll itself. Election polls fit this purpose, because the term starts at a definite time. Confirmation polls do not fit this purpose, because the appointment is assumed confirmed unless the vote is for non-confirmation. There is nothing preventing an appointed official from taking office immediately, regardless of a confirmation poll's result.

Given that the purpose of interpretation #1 is enhanced by allowing longer time periods, and the purpose of interpretation #2 is not relevant to this kind of poll, it is clear that a reasonable citizen might use interpretation #1, in good faith, believing it to be the correct way of looking at this law.

Now, we have the precedent that the judiciary cannot read new meaning into the law, so the simple definition of "should" has to be used, as in "it would be preferred if, but not necessary that". Shall or must are used when an absolute requirement exists.

If the citizens want the poll to be exactly 48 hours in all interpretations, they must (almost said should ) pass an amendment to say must, or add exactly.

Second question: was the poll legal?

The poll was legal, for the same reason that the selection of Triumvirate 6.0 as the CoL was legal, as ruled by the Term 1 judiciary. The law, at the time that the poll opened was posted by a citizen, private, and open at least 48 hours, one of the potentially valid interpretations of the law. The people voted in good faith in that poll, believing it to be valid. Even if it were now ruled that should be in the law really means must be exactly this would still not invalidate the poll, nor its result. A ruling by the judiciary, on a subject which does not apply any longer, cannot retroactively change the result. For example, if it were ruled now that Boaring Wallow was not settled according to the CoL in force at that time, we would not set the clock back to 4000BC. At most, the law would now be interpreted differently, to apply to future decisions.