Judicial Log

[Chieftess]

This is to log all judicial actions during the course of the demogame. This is not a discussion thread.

Note: When issuing letters of articles, please quote the article so that users clearly know what is being changed/discussed.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR1
Donovan Zoi has requested a Judicial review concerning the appointment/ election of the Vice President and it's effect on the Chain of Command in regards to Article D. In lieu of any legislation concerning the COC, he requests a ruling on the passing of 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?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Judge Advocate's Opinion

Public Defender's Opinion

Chief Justice Opinion

The Majority Opinion on this matter rules with the President. No Chain of Command is granted in Article D.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR2
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review of Proposed Ammendment to Article H of the Constitution. To abide by his request, this Court will oversee the writing of this proposed amendment and upon completion, conduct the JR to determine if any conflicts with existing Law exist. If no conflicts exist, this Court will post the Legislative poll for the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution.

Proposed Amendment to Article H of the Constituiton
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Judge Advocate's Opinion

Public Defender's Opinion

Chief Justice Opinion

The Proposed Poll for an Amendment to Article H passed Judicial Review.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR3
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning the legality of a Proposed Legislative Poll. The proposed poll is for an Amendment to Article O of the Constitution.

Proposed Poll for Constitutional Amendment to Article O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion

Judge Advocate's Opinion

Public Defender's Opinion

The Proposed Poll passed Judicial Review.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR4
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning the legality of a Proposed Legislative Poll. The proposed poll is for an Amendment to Article E of the Constitution.

Proposed Poll for an Amendemnet to Article E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion

Judge Advocate Opinion

Public Defender's Opinion

The Proposed Poll passed Judicial Review.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR5
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning the legality of a Citizen holding two Offices at once by virtue of winning two elections simultaneously. The question wraps around the issue of a Candidate running for more than one Office at a time. If a Candidate wins two elections simultaneously, is this a violation of Article H.

Because of the passage of the Amendment to Article H, wording for that Article eliminates the possibility of the above mentioned situation from happening. Article H in its current form is posted below:

Article H.
              No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership 
              (President, Vice-President, Department Leader, 
              Judiciary, Provincial Governor, Deputy) simultaneously,
              nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
              commencement of the general election.

Because of the change in legislation, this Judicial Review is closed.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR6

Donovan Zoi has requested a Judicial Review for a Proposed Poll for an Amendment to the Constitution ~ Article I. It can be found here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Defender's Opinion

Chief Justice Opinion

Public Defender's Opinion

The proposed poll has passed Judicial Review.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR7

Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning Provinces and Governors in regards to their very existance due to the lack of Legislation in the Constitution. His claim is that due to this lack of Legislation, Provinces and Governors can not exist in the great nation of Japanatica. That said, he ask 2 questions of this Court ~

1. Can Provinces be formed in the nation's territory?

2. Can citizens elected to the Provincial Governor's position make any decisions?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion

Judge Advocate's Opinion

Public Defender's Opinion

In essance, what this Court has ruled is that because laws dealing with these matters are still pending, no full authorization has been approved yet for either entity. However, the Judges split on the questions and authorized Provinces to legally be formed, while at the same time denying Governors control of said Provinces. This ruling allows for Provinces, but puts their control in the hands of the Domestic Department or the President.

EDIT: Because of legislation passed as Article E of the Demogame Constitution, this ruling is overturned. Governors are now authorized to control all aspects of their elected Office.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR8

Donovan Zoi has requested a Judicial Review pertaining to Article M of the Constitution, and it's meaning in regards to stopping play.

Under Article M as written, is the Designated Player granted the unique authority to "reverse" irreversible actions while playing the save at turnchat?

In CivGeneral's Dealing with demands from other nations thread, discussion has been raised on what can be done to plan for and offset unplanned demands from rival nations. It was suggested by someone that the DP could view the demand, then stop the game and take his findings back to the forum. Our President responded that it is not within his right to do such a thing and based on precedent, he is correct.

However, is Article M written in such a way to allow him to do just that? Due to the parade of run-on clauses that Article M contains, it is hard for this legislator to tell.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion

Public Defender's Opinion

Judge Advocate's Opinion

The Majority Opinon is that the Designated Player is NOT granted the unique authority to "reverse" irreversible actions while playing the save at turnchat. This action is allowed only in renogiations of Peace.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR9

President DaveShack has requested a Judicial Review concerning the matter of tied poll results dealing with Official matters. He has asked 2 questions, first dealing with the Domestic Minister in regards to city placement polls, and then dealing with tied polls in general. This court feels that the second question encompasses the first, and therfore negates ruling on it. Thus, DaveShack's request for a Judicial Review will be reduced to his second question:

Question 2: Does any provision of the constitution give anyone the right to break ties in general?

The "Law" in question will be seen as the entirity of the Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Defenders Opinion

Judge Advocate Opinion

Chief Justice Opinion

Majority Opinion ~ For the purposes of not having an impossibly deadlocked poll, it is within the power of the minister whose jurisdiction encompases the poll in question to break a tie.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR10
As a citizen, Cyc presented this proposed poll for an Amendment to the Code of Laws to the Court for Judicial Review.

Proposed Poll for an Amendment to the Code of Laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion

Public Defender's Opinion

Judge Advocate's Opinion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Proposed Poll passes Judicial Review.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR11
Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review for his proposed poll for an Amendment to Artile G of the Constitution. This Article deals with Terms of Office, Deputies, and Vacancies and Appointments to Elected Offices.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion

Public Defender's Opinion

Judge Advocate's Opinion

The proposed poll has passed Judicial Review and can proceed to polling.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR12
Black Hole has requested a Judicial Review concerning the legality of a Government Office that is not defined in the Constitution posting legally binding Instructions in the TCIT. His request can be found here. Black Hole is referencing Articles D, J, and N of the Constitution for this request.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion

Judge Advocate's Opinion

Public Defender's Opinion

Majority Opinion: The instructions posted by offices not mentioned in the constitution or appointed by the president are not binding legal instructions.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR13
Ravensfire has requested a Judicial Review on the Proposed Polls for Article G and supporting Sections of the Code of Laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion

Public Defender's Opinion

Judge Advocate's Opinion

The Proposed Polls have passed Judicial Review and may proceed to polling.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR14

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review on his Proposed Poll for the ratification of Section O (1) of the Code of Laws
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Defender's Opinion

Chief Justice Opinion

Judge Advocate's Opinion

The Proposed Poll has passed Judicial Review and may proceed to polling.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR15

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review concerning the powers of the Vice President in regards to creating a Turn Chat Instruction Thread, should the President fail to do so within the 24 hour period prior to a scheduled Turn Chat. He is referencing Article G, Section 2 of the Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion

Judge Advocate's Opinion

Public Defender's Opinion

Sir Donald III's question was :
Does the Vice President have the right to create Turnchat Instruction Threads if the President has not done so within 24 Hours of the Pre-specified time of the TC?

Majority Opinion: This Court has ruled that the Vice President does indeed have the right to create a Turn Chat Instruction thread under normal and abnormal circumstances. Normal being under the direction of the President or a planned Absense. Abnormal being if the President failed to post a TCIT prior to the 24 hour deadline before a scheduled Turn Chat.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR16

Civman2004 has requested a Judicial Review of Article N of the Constitution in regards to the question of amending said Article to include the Code of Laws as part of the ruleset referred to in it. Stating:

"Also, we should ammend article N to restrict citizens from disobeying the code of laws, on the basis that the constitution does not forbid it? My understanding is that the COL is a "governing law," not part of the constitution itself, and thus not expressly included in article N. I thus request a judicial review on whether the constitution (article N) actually requires citizens to follow the code of laws."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Defender's Opinion

Chief Justice Opinion

Judge Advocate's Opinion

Majority Opinion: Article N does not actually require the citizens to obey/follow the Code of Laws, in answer to Civman2004's question. That is done by Article B. But in answer to the intent of the request for Judicial Review, to protect the integrity of the Code of Laws, an amendment should be drawn up for Article N with the Code of Laws included in the rules that may forbid citizen actions.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR17

Sir Donald III has submitted a request for Judicial Review concerning the authority and capabilities of Governors appointed to Office, while a Confirmation Poll has been posted against them. He is referencing Article G.2 of the Constitution. His two questions are:
A: With the exception of Deputy Promotions, (to the full office, given the Article G Section 2 of the Constitution,) would the Apointees under Confirmation be allowed to write instruction threads for any Turnchats during the "Confirmation Period"?

B: And if not, then who would make instructions for Vacant or Newly Established positions?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Defender's Opinion

Chief Justice Opinion

Judge Advocate's Opinion

Majority Opinion: This Court has ruled that an Appointee to an elected Office retains all rights and privilages associated with that Office unless a Confirmation Poll closed with negative results. If that situation occurs, then the Office becomes Vacant again.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR18

Ravensfire has submitted a request for Judicial Review concerning Article N. He has presented 2 questions to the Court, first asking about the allowances granted to the People through Article N, and the second asking if said Article grants specific rights to the People in naming the Provinces and Cities.

Referencing Article N of the Constitution, Ravensfire's questions are:
1. Does Article N grant unto the People all rights and responsiblities not forbidden to them and not granted to specified leader?

2. Does Article N soley grant unto the People the right to name Provinces and Cities, or does that right lie with the Domestic Minister, under Article D.1 (resonsible for all domestic initiatives...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion

Public Defender's Opinion

Judge Advocate's Opinion

Majority Opinion: This Judicial Review was requested in response to a Citizen's Discussion on the matter of Naming Rights of a Governor of a Province. No real Law in our ruleset covers Naming Rights specifially, so an overview of our Constitution was used in determining the end result. Because of the questions and Article referenced in the JR, the subject matter became weighed down with a confusing mesh of interpretation. Thus, after all the Opinions were turned in, a Call for Clarification was submitted by the Chief Justice, in order to better summarize the said Opinions. This Call for Clarification sought to fine-tune the answers given, as the separate Justices seemed to agree in intent, but differ in wording. The resulting Clarifications are the Opinions posted above.

Therefore, this Court finds in answer to the questioned asked,
1. Yes, Article N grants unto the People all rights and responsiblities not forbidden to them and not granted to specified Leader.
2. No, Article N does not soley grant unto the People the right to name Provinces and Cities, nor does that right lie with the Domestic Minister, under Article D.1.

In essance, it was determined that all rights and responsibilities not forbidden by our ruleset or delegated to any person(s) are within the rights of all citizens and brought to fruition by their actions. The second question was a bit more difficult to summarize, but basically, even though Province and City Naming are not forbidden to the people, nor granted to a specific Leader by the Constitution, the right of Naming Provinces and Cities is not ultimately in the hands of the people, but granted to them under certain restrictions.

The Public Defender stated that Naming Rights for Provinces and Cities fall under the supervision of the Domestic Advisor. The Judge Advocate stated that the ultimate authority for naming Provinces and Cities lies with the citizens, but the various Governors and the Domestic Advisor are to determine their will. The Chief Justice stated that Governors are responsible for giving the Provinces their permanent names and that citizens are responsible for City Naming as per their place in the Citizen Registry.

These restrictions are not a major deterent in making the ruling. These restrictions can be worked out in future Judicial Review. Hopefully, there will be new laws passed that help answer the questions raised here.

 

[Cyc]

DG5JR19

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review concerning who has the authority to post Instructions for the route of a Naval transport carrying a Settler. SD3 is referencing Article O for this JR. His question is:

Who is in control of a Naval Transport containing a Settler?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to the fact that no Opinions were posted by the Public Defender or the Judge Advocate, this Judicial Review has been transferred to the Term 3 Judiciary. The Term 2 Chief Justice Opinion will become null and void at this time.