Changes in Article F.

[Strider]

Current Article:

The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as council to an accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

Proposed Changes:

Article F. The Judicial Branch shall consist of the Chief Justice, the Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate. The Judiciary is tasked with upholding and interpreting the Constitution, in a fair and impartial manner. The Chief Justice shall be charged with organizing Judicial Affairs and interpreting the Constitution through Judicial Reviews. The Public Defender shall act as a council and protector to an accused citizen. The Judge Advocate is tasked with upholding the laws of the Constitution through acting as the prosecution against a citizen.
1. Judicial Review Process
a. A citizen requests a Judicial Review inside of the proper Judiciary thread, stating the questioned area.
b. The Chief Justice organizes a ruling for the Judicial Review.
c. The Public Defender and Judge Advocate accepts or declines the ruling made by the Chief Justice. If both justices decline the ruling, then the matter is taken to a discussion for the citizens.
d. The discussion must run for 74 hours, followed by a private poll, to run 48 hours, of the majority decision in Yes/No/Abstain format. If the Review is still not solved, it is taken back to discussion, and the process repeats.
e. If the area being questioned must be solved, or answered, in a timely manner. The Chief Justice may post a poll excusing the said citizen from any wrong-doing a future discussion might cause.

 

[Black_Hole]

this is way too vague, if you really want this first, put it in the code of laws, second just take the entire court procedures and put it into the col

 

[mhcarver]

How about this:
I'm not against the court having laws passed that regulate it but it needs to be able to interpret the constitution and by your other complaints a set of laws detailing how a citizen complaint should be done

 

[Strider]

How about this:
I'm not against the court having laws passed that regulate it but it needs to be able to interpret the constitution and by your other complaints a set of laws detailing how a citizen complaint should be done

The Judiciary is tasked with upholding and interpreting the Constitution.

The process of Citizen Complaints can be amended later. Right now, trying to add to much will just make more disagreement, and get nothing passed.

 

[blackheart]

The process of Citizen Complaints can be amended later. Right now, trying to add to much will just make more disagreement, and get nothing passed.

Adding nothing seems to be having the same effect.

 

[Strider]

Adding nothing seems to be having the same effect.

Doing anything in this game has always met opposition, even more so when it's proposed by myself.

This proposal is much better than the illegal "Judicial Precedures" that is currently in place, and gives the citizens an actually say in the interpreting there, or actually OUR constitution.

The Judiciary has to much self-proclaimed power, and that must end.

 

[Strider]

If there is no other comments I'll submit this to the Judiciary once the new term sets in.

 

[MOTH]

Not to be spammy, but you need to need to follow the procedure in CoL section I and get 2nds and thirds for this.

 

[blackheart]

Doing anything in this game has always met opposition, even more so when it's proposed by myself.

This proposal is much better than the illegal "Judicial Precedures" that is currently in place, and gives the citizens an actually say in the interpreting there, or actually OUR constitution.

The Judiciary has to much self-proclaimed power, and that must end.

Isn't that what the Judiciary is elected for, to interpret our laws? I wouldn't want to have everything interpretting the laws because well, everyone sees the laws differently. If someone has a problem with the interpretation they could always bring something up about it.

 

[Ashburnham]

This proposal is much better than the illegal "Judicial Precedures" that is currently in place, and gives the citizens an actually say in the interpreting there, or actually OUR constitution.

The Judiciary has to much self-proclaimed power, and that must end.

The biggest argument against your ammendment is that no one (except yourself) is against the Judiciary practicing as it already does. Personally, I like the way Judicial Reviews work, and I don't see a need to codify them. It's arguable that the Judiciary is the best-run branch in our government, and there's no need to meddle with a good thing.


If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Strider]

Isn't that what the Judiciary is elected for, to interpret our laws? I wouldn't want to have everything interpretting the laws because well, everyone sees the laws differently. If someone has a problem with the interpretation they could always bring something up about it.

Actually, according to our constitution, they can not interpret our laws. The Constitution does not clearly define what the Judiciary does, and it lacks in many aspects. Several I'm sure I haven't thought of yet. My goal is to codify and clearify it.

Unclear laws causes arguements, arguements cause division, and division can kill this game easily.

 

[Strider]

The biggest argument against your ammendment is that no one (except yourself) is against the Judiciary practicing as it already does. Personally, I like the way Judicial Reviews work, and I don't see a need to codify them. It's arguable that the Judiciary is the best-run branch in our government, and there's no need to meddle with a good thing.


If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I hate the way Judicial Reviews work, the current Judicial Review process leaves the most important factor of the demogame out of the decision making process. So, one person decides what our laws mean? One person out of 30 something? It's the same as letting our leaders make all of the decisions, it's undemocratic, and as I already said, leaves the citizens out of the decision making process.

It is our constitution, why can we not have a say in what it means?