Proposed Judicial Review changes

[Bootstoots]

I would support a CoL amendment that would change CoL E.6 to

6. Judicial Review
A. A quorum for all forms of review except dismissal of investigations requires the attendence of 2 of 3 members of the judiciary. A quorum for dismissal of investigations requires the attendence 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
F. Review of Polls
1. 2 of 3 must agree that the selected poll is invalid
2. If the poll is declared invalid, it is closed and its results are considered void.

Changes are noted in bold.

 

[disorganizer]

i would support deleting all of our rules except the constitution and reworking it in dg3 if that is possible

 

[Shaitan]

I second disorganizer for general rule handling. For this specific change, the quorum requirements are in the individual review descriptions. Removing them from there and summarizing them in a single segment is fine but they haven't been removed in the example.

For the new addition on poll validity I wouldn't close the poll. Give the Judiciary the authority to remove the official stamp from the poll and render it informational only.

 

[Bootstoots]

I will follow Shaitan's suggestion on this matter. I will amend my proposal for E.6.F.2 from "If the poll is declared invalid, it is closed and its results are considered void." to: "If the poll is declared invalid, it is no longer binding but may remain open for informational purposes only."

It appears that the Constitution, CoL, and CoS will be carried over to the next game (judging from the results of the informational poll). If they are not, I will try to get this in the new CoL (or its equivalent).

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by bootstoots
It appears that the Constitution, CoL, and CoS will be carried over to the next game (judging from the results of the informational poll). If they are not, I will try to get this in the new CoL (or its equivalent).

Scratch that. It looks like the CoL and CoS will not be carried over to the next demogame. I will try to get my proposed changes into the new CoL.