Term 2 Judiciary - The Court at the Big Rock
- Thread starter ravensfire
- Start date
I hereby ask the judiciary to invalidate this poll.
Reason: it does not conform to the regulations of the Naming Initiative on two points
a)one name that was not seconded is included in the poll
b)the discussion on Naming was open for less then 3 days instead of the minimum of 4 days specified there.
Reason: it does not conform to the regulations of the Naming Initiative on two points
a)one name that was not seconded is included in the poll
b)the discussion on Naming was open for less then 3 days instead of the minimum of 4 days specified there.
robboo seconded abstain after I asked for invalidating and after the poll was posted.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Don't be so hasty
there is still one hour left and maybe someone seconds some other name 
- I won't be online then, but if no one posts the poll by tomorrow morning I'll do it ...
I would like to request a judicial review on whether a citizen can hold multiple offices, by appointment.
The only law I can find which mentions a limit on muliple offices is the election law, which says only one nomination can be accepted.
The only law I can find which mentions a limit on muliple offices is the election law, which says only one nomination can be accepted.
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
First, let's get the old JR out of the way...
Ruling: C4DG2JR8
The provision on term limits is simple enough. The right to be eligible to hold public office does not particularly include the right to hold a specific office itself. Additionally, the initiative limiting a person to two consecutive terms presents a reasonable restriction imposed by the Legislature.
Therefore, I find that there is no conflict between the Election Act of 4000 B.C. and Article A of the Constitution.
-Octavian X
Public Defender
Ruling: C4DG2JR8
The provision on term limits is simple enough. The right to be eligible to hold public office does not particularly include the right to hold a specific office itself. Additionally, the initiative limiting a person to two consecutive terms presents a reasonable restriction imposed by the Legislature.
Therefore, I find that there is no conflict between the Election Act of 4000 B.C. and Article A of the Constitution.
-Octavian X
Public Defender
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
As per DaveShack's request, I do find merit with the question.
While I think there's merit here, I'm not quite ready to rule yet. While there is a clear limit to the number of offices for which a person can run, it doesn't look like anything really prevents the Chieftain from filling an empty elective post with a person who already has another office. Of course, it would seem that the potential negative reaction to such a move would prevent that from happening.
Our clear intent, I think, was to limit a citizen to one elected office, while leaving various appointive offices (like deputies and the like, or the cartographer and historian) were not bound to these limits. I'm not one who likes to rule based on the 'intent' of the founder, however.
That said, I think this presents the bench with an interesting opportunity. We've given ourselves the power to issue temporary rulings to define law for "questions that may materially delay the Demogame, but would best be answered by an Initiative or Amendment," and so far we haven't touched it. The question that DaveShack brings presents us with an interesting chance to test exactly how that process would work in the game.
While I think there's merit here, I'm not quite ready to rule yet. While there is a clear limit to the number of offices for which a person can run, it doesn't look like anything really prevents the Chieftain from filling an empty elective post with a person who already has another office. Of course, it would seem that the potential negative reaction to such a move would prevent that from happening.
Our clear intent, I think, was to limit a citizen to one elected office, while leaving various appointive offices (like deputies and the like, or the cartographer and historian) were not bound to these limits. I'm not one who likes to rule based on the 'intent' of the founder, however.
That said, I think this presents the bench with an interesting opportunity. We've given ourselves the power to issue temporary rulings to define law for "questions that may materially delay the Demogame, but would best be answered by an Initiative or Amendment," and so far we haven't touched it. The question that DaveShack brings presents us with an interesting chance to test exactly how that process would work in the game.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Daveshack comes before the court asking:
Relevant laws:
Article 2 of the Constitution
1) May a citizen simultaneously hold multiple elected offices?
Discussion to be held in the Judiciary thread.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
This request for Judicial Review has been found to have merit, and has been docketed as C4DG2JR9.
Relevant laws:
Article 2 of the Constitution
Section 2 of the the Election Act of 4000 BC
Section 2 of the Tribal Government Act of 4000 BC
Question for the Court to answer:
1) May a citizen simultaneously hold multiple elected offices?
Discussion to be held in the Judiciary thread.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Comments on JR9:
Being the author of most of the relevant laws, I've got a pretty good insight as to the intent of the drafter. That intent has been the same that guided C3DG7 and C4DG1 - citizens can be elected to only one office. That's it. In this DG, we control that by simply limiting how many nominations you can accept. It's kinda hard to get elected to multiple offices, when you can only be in one race!
The goal is to prevent someone from having multiple offices when there are other citizens interested in holding office. A secondary goal is to make sure that, when there are open offices after an election, we aren't hampering the ability of the Government to function by preventing motivated citizens from helping out.
I believe that the restriction is only that a citizen can be elected to one office, and that our ruleset permits a citizen to hold multiple offices via the appointment process.
-- Ravensfire, citizen
Being the author of most of the relevant laws, I've got a pretty good insight as to the intent of the drafter. That intent has been the same that guided C3DG7 and C4DG1 - citizens can be elected to only one office. That's it. In this DG, we control that by simply limiting how many nominations you can accept. It's kinda hard to get elected to multiple offices, when you can only be in one race!
The goal is to prevent someone from having multiple offices when there are other citizens interested in holding office. A secondary goal is to make sure that, when there are open offices after an election, we aren't hampering the ability of the Government to function by preventing motivated citizens from helping out.
I believe that the restriction is only that a citizen can be elected to one office, and that our ruleset permits a citizen to hold multiple offices via the appointment process.
-- Ravensfire, citizen
donsig
Low level intermediary
I would like to offer the following:
Section 2 of the Tribal Government Act, an act that deals specifically with with vacancies and appointments to government office, does not restrict holders of other government positions from being appointed to a vacancy. As long as no other law forbids holding multiple offices there is legal justification to it.
donsig
Friend of the Court by the Big Rock
Section 2 of the Tribal Government Act, an act that deals specifically with with vacancies and appointments to government office, does not restrict holders of other government positions from being appointed to a vacancy. As long as no other law forbids holding multiple offices there is legal justification to it.
donsig
Friend of the Court by the Big Rock
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
Ruling on docket number C4DG2JR8:
I accept Octavian X's analysis of this particular point of law. The intent of the law clearly is not to allow any person to hold any office, but rather to allow any person to hold an office. Note the absence of the "y."
I would also advise the filer of the complaint not to worry.
Ruling on docket number C4DG2JR9:
The law on this point is annoyingly perverse, because while one cannot be elected to multiple elective offices on account of the limitation on nominations, it appears that one can, in theory, be appointed to a vacant elected office. It should be noted that I see no problems with a person holding both an elective office (e.g. Chieftain) and a solely appointed office (e.g. Cartographer).
While I accept Ravensfire's analysis that the intention of the law was not to allow anyone to hold two elected offices, I cannot accept that anything in the law forbids a holder of an elected office to be appointed to another elected office, so if there is a tie in the election for, say, Elder of NotA, and the Chieftain decides that he/she wants to appoint himself or herself to that job until the runoffs are over, I see no legal reason for the Chieftain not to do so. However, I think that policywise it's a bad idea, and I would advise the Court, upon meeting after the election, to issue a standing injunction against elected officials holding other elective offices by appointment.
Yours, etc.:
Lockesdonkey, Judge Advocate and Public Defender-elect
I accept Octavian X's analysis of this particular point of law. The intent of the law clearly is not to allow any person to hold any office, but rather to allow any person to hold an office. Note the absence of the "y."
I would also advise the filer of the complaint not to worry.
Ruling on docket number C4DG2JR9:
The law on this point is annoyingly perverse, because while one cannot be elected to multiple elective offices on account of the limitation on nominations, it appears that one can, in theory, be appointed to a vacant elected office. It should be noted that I see no problems with a person holding both an elective office (e.g. Chieftain) and a solely appointed office (e.g. Cartographer).
While I accept Ravensfire's analysis that the intention of the law was not to allow anyone to hold two elected offices, I cannot accept that anything in the law forbids a holder of an elected office to be appointed to another elected office, so if there is a tie in the election for, say, Elder of NotA, and the Chieftain decides that he/she wants to appoint himself or herself to that job until the runoffs are over, I see no legal reason for the Chieftain not to do so. However, I think that policywise it's a bad idea, and I would advise the Court, upon meeting after the election, to issue a standing injunction against elected officials holding other elective offices by appointment.
Yours, etc.:
Lockesdonkey, Judge Advocate and Public Defender-elect
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
Ruling: C4DG2JR9
I concur with Justice Lockesdonkey's analysis - the law clearly forbids a person for participating in multiple elections, but does not prevent a person from actually holding multiple elective offices. That said, at the moment, this is perfectly acceptable, legally speaking.
It is not, however, a good course of action. To that end, if the Chief Justice will accept the request, the Court should consider an injunction against holding multiple elective offices, filled either through election or appointment due to vacancy.
-Octavian X
Public Defender
I concur with Justice Lockesdonkey's analysis - the law clearly forbids a person for participating in multiple elections, but does not prevent a person from actually holding multiple elective offices. That said, at the moment, this is perfectly acceptable, legally speaking.
It is not, however, a good course of action. To that end, if the Chief Justice will accept the request, the Court should consider an injunction against holding multiple elective offices, filled either through election or appointment due to vacancy.
-Octavian X
Public Defender
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Summary:
The Term Limits clause of the Election Act of 4000 BC does not conflict with Article B of the Constitution.
Relevant Law:
The relevant laws have been quoted here.
Citizen Comments:
Thanks to Black_Hole, DaveShack, Octavian X, CivGeneral and fed1943 for their comments on this Judicial Review.
Analysis:
The truly relevant phrase here is eligible to hold an office.
The rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution are some of our most important rights ensuring that citizen can speak their minds and run the government (to grab just a few!). The Constitution also guarantees that ultimately, the power to make decisions belongs to the people. Going way, way back in time, the people did speak on term limits, and said that they wanted limits on them.
The current Term Limit clause limits the ability of a citizen to be elected to the same office more than two terms in a row. The citizen can be appointed to the office any number of time. The citizen can also wait a term, then run for the office again. The citizen is also eligible to run for any other office, should they be barred from running for a certain office due to term limits.
That last part is key citizens affected by the term limit clause can still run for any other office, just not that one. The Constitution guarantees the right to hold Public Office, but not the right to run for every office. So long as a citizen is eligible to hold a public office, that requirement is met. This would also hold true to defeat arguments that the single nomination clause is invalid.
Ruling:
I find that the term limits clause of the Election Act of 4000 BC does not conflict with Article B of the Constitution.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
The Term Limits clause of the Election Act of 4000 BC does not conflict with Article B of the Constitution.
Relevant Law:
The relevant laws have been quoted here.
Citizen Comments:
Thanks to Black_Hole, DaveShack, Octavian X, CivGeneral and fed1943 for their comments on this Judicial Review.
Analysis:
The truly relevant phrase here is eligible to hold an office.
The rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution are some of our most important rights ensuring that citizen can speak their minds and run the government (to grab just a few!). The Constitution also guarantees that ultimately, the power to make decisions belongs to the people. Going way, way back in time, the people did speak on term limits, and said that they wanted limits on them.
The current Term Limit clause limits the ability of a citizen to be elected to the same office more than two terms in a row. The citizen can be appointed to the office any number of time. The citizen can also wait a term, then run for the office again. The citizen is also eligible to run for any other office, should they be barred from running for a certain office due to term limits.
That last part is key citizens affected by the term limit clause can still run for any other office, just not that one. The Constitution guarantees the right to hold Public Office, but not the right to run for every office. So long as a citizen is eligible to hold a public office, that requirement is met. This would also hold true to defeat arguments that the single nomination clause is invalid.
Ruling:
I find that the term limits clause of the Election Act of 4000 BC does not conflict with Article B of the Constitution.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Summary:
Citizens may be appointed to an elected office, even if they currently hold an elected office.
Relevant Law:
The relevant laws have been quoted here.
Citizen Comments:
Thanks to Octavian, Ravensfire and donsig for their comments.
Analysis:
I find that I agree with my colleagues on this the laws are fairly obtuse on this matter. The irony is rather thick here, as I am the crafter of those very laws!
What is clear, is that citizens are prohibited from accepting more than one nomination per election cycle. This nicely limits the number of offices a citizen can be elected to just one. The Election Act speaks no further on this subject.
The next obvious place to look is the act covering appointments. With the appointment process being covered here, surely it will say something about this. It it, unfortunately, silent on if citizens can be appointed to an elected office if they already hold one.
Ruling:
Given the generally permissive nature of our rules, I decline to take a strict view of this, and find that a citizen already holding an elected office may be appointed to another elected office.
Addendum:
As both my colleagues noted, this is a area of the rules that should be cleared up. As such, I will start a discussion on this in the morning to identify the preferences of the citizens, and amend the rules as needed. I decline, however, to issue any temporary rulings prohibiting this, as this matter will not delay the DG.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
Citizens may be appointed to an elected office, even if they currently hold an elected office.
Relevant Law:
The relevant laws have been quoted here.
Citizen Comments:
Thanks to Octavian, Ravensfire and donsig for their comments.
Analysis:
I find that I agree with my colleagues on this the laws are fairly obtuse on this matter. The irony is rather thick here, as I am the crafter of those very laws!
What is clear, is that citizens are prohibited from accepting more than one nomination per election cycle. This nicely limits the number of offices a citizen can be elected to just one. The Election Act speaks no further on this subject.
The next obvious place to look is the act covering appointments. With the appointment process being covered here, surely it will say something about this. It it, unfortunately, silent on if citizens can be appointed to an elected office if they already hold one.
Ruling:
Given the generally permissive nature of our rules, I decline to take a strict view of this, and find that a citizen already holding an elected office may be appointed to another elected office.
Addendum:
As both my colleagues noted, this is a area of the rules that should be cleared up. As such, I will start a discussion on this in the morning to identify the preferences of the citizens, and amend the rules as needed. I decline, however, to issue any temporary rulings prohibiting this, as this matter will not delay the DG.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
The court has made the following rulings:
C4DG2JR8
By unanimous decision, the court rules that the Term Limits clause of the Election Act of 4000 BC does not conflict with Article B of the Constitition, and thus is constitutional.
C4DG2JR9
By unanimous decision, the court rules that citizen holding an elected office may be appointed to another elected office. The court also directs Ravensfire to begin a discussion on this matter to determine if an amendment is needed to clarify this situation.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
C4DG2JR8
By unanimous decision, the court rules that the Term Limits clause of the Election Act of 4000 BC does not conflict with Article B of the Constitition, and thus is constitutional.
C4DG2JR9
By unanimous decision, the court rules that citizen holding an elected office may be appointed to another elected office. The court also directs Ravensfire to begin a discussion on this matter to determine if an amendment is needed to clarify this situation.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
Similar threads
- Locked
