Citizen initiative poll: Should justices be allowed to rule on cases directly affect

[Swissempire]

Are you saying that lazily and stubbornly doing whatever the heck you want without regard for written law beacuse it seems right is the New Deal? In a world where Paris Hilton still manages to capture the attention and imagination of some, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Plus, I don't think I have ever used the word "crap" to describe the ideas of others. I suppose that is another galvanizing new way of thinking that will only grow more glorious and respected with time.

I sorry, i missed the part in the Law where it says, "What a veteran says go"
And crap wasn't decribing your ideas, it was decribing your attitude. Unfortunately, the only omnipotent being here is Chip(the god).

P.S. I am sorry if i am getting vicious, I'll try to stop, but its hard. This reminds me of the song "We don't need no thought control"*goes off humming lyrics

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

We don't need no thought control"*goes off humming lyrics

Pink Floyd?

 

[DaveShack]

Pink Floyd?

Another brick in the wall.

 

[Swissempire]

I can't hear you, i'm humming.
hmm hmm hmm hm hmm hmm hmm. Hey teacher, leave that kid alone, hmm hmm hmm.

BTW, DOnsig, did you ever choose an option, because as you said this will set precedent, so we should make it a good intiative

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

thought so. see the movie?

 

[Swissempire]

No, i didn't, was it good?

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

not really. the sound track was good.

 

[Swissempire]

well thats a given

 

[donsig]

BTW, DOnsig, did you ever choose an option, because as you said this will set precedent, so we should make it a good intiative

No sir, I did not, sir.

I did make a suggestion a long ways back before the music started. Since any option we choose now will have to be formalized in a subsequent poll there's no point in withholding our votes on this question. But if it will make you happy my good man I will repeat my suggestion here:

A justice would be required to recuse him or her self if either:

Option 1) The other two justices vote that the case affects the third

OR

Option 2) Any ONE citizen posts a poll asking the assembly if the case in question affects a specific justice and a majority of the votes in that poll (which would be required to be open for 4 days) affirm that the case does affect the justice.

Justices could always voluntarily recuse themselves.

Also, the pro tem justice would be subject to a confirmation poll (again 4 days long) if a citizen wanted one.

 

[robboo]

If you have been following some of the news lately you will see that in the US supreme court there has been talk of a justice having to recuse himself due to comments he made about the case....

Once again we are imitating real life.

 

[DaveShack]

Why 4 days for two polls? This is a blatant monkey wrench in the wheels of justice. Two days for each poll would be plenty.

 

[DaveShack]

This is not the first initiative poll, there have been at least three obvious ones which have come before this, one to settle each city. This poll needs to follow the precedent set by the other ones, of being public polls and validated by the Censor (which is actually just a check that they follow the rules including being public polls).

 

[robboo]

so this is an invalid poll...since it isnt public. Correct? If so lets close it and put it to bed.

 

[donsig]

Why 4 days for two polls? This is a blatant monkey wrench in the wheels of justice. Two days for each poll would be plenty.

Why do you consider giving forum members a decent time in which to make a decision a blatant monkey wrench in the wheels of justice? Should those of us who want to be a part of the game have to risk not participating in an important decision simply because we want to take the weekend off? Why the concern that we rush to judgement on these issues?

This is not the first initiative poll, there have been at least three obvious ones which have come before this, one to settle each city. This poll needs to follow the precedent set by the other ones, of being public polls and validated by the Censor (which is actually just a check that they follow the rules including being public polls).

Again, I see nothing in our constitution or code of laws that says a citizen initiative MUST be a public poll. As for any rules the censor wants to make I would point out that clause C.1.3 of our constitution which says Lower forms of law may modify parts of this hierarchy, except for the provision regarding initiative which may not be modified. The next clause says Initiative must always be allowed. Not only does it NOT say an initiative must be a public poll, it DOES say initiatives are always allowed and cannot be modified. If you have a different legal interpretation I guess we have two choices: A judicial review or a constitutional amendment that forces initiatives to be public polls.

 

[Swissempire]

I will not comment on validity or non-validity at this time. What i will comment on is that if we don't add one of the options, this just adds a law to the code of laws thats in the judicial procedure. Mondo unneccary. I would go for Donsigs option 2, IF it woas made to 3 citiziens and 72 hours.

Again, i haven't voted in this poll.

 

[DaveShack]

Again, I see nothing in our constitution or code of laws that says a citizen initiative MUST be a public poll. As for any rules the censor wants to make I would point out that clause C.1.3 of our constitution which says Lower forms of law may modify parts of this hierarchy, except for the provision regarding initiative which may not be modified. The next clause says Initiative must always be allowed. Not only does it NOT say an initiative must be a public poll, it DOES say initiatives are always allowed and cannot be modified. If you have a different legal interpretation I guess we have two choices: A judicial review or a constitutional amendment that forces initiatives to be public polls.

1. The Constitution is silent on whether polls must be public or private.
2. The CoL is silent on this issue but places the Censor in charge of initiatives.
3. The Censorial procedures are, by the logic of point 2, a lower form of law.
4. The Censorial procedures, by the virtue of point 1, are not in conflict with the Constitution, and by point 2 are not in conflict with the CoL. Furthermore they are more specific on the point of polling.
5. Therefore, the Censorial procedures may require a public poll, and in this case do require it.

If the Censor validates the poll, then a CC might be required to clarify the question of whether the Censor's own policy was followed.
Unless proven otherwise, the law is correct. You would have to prove that the poll does not need to be public.

 

[donsig]

1. The Constitution is silent on whether polls must be public or private.
2. The CoL is silent on this issue but places the Censor in charge of initiatives.
3. The Censorial procedures are, by the logic of point 2, a lower form of law.
4. The Censorial procedures, by the virtue of point 1, are not in conflict with the Constitution, and by point 2 are not in conflict with the CoL. Furthermore they are more specific on the point of polling.
5. Therefore, the Censorial procedures may require a public poll, and in this case do require it.

If the Censor validates the poll, then a CC might be required to clarify the question of whether the Censor's own policy was followed.
Unless proven otherwise, the law is correct. You would have to prove that the poll does not need to be public.

There is something wrong when one official can singlehandely prohibit something as basic as a private poll, something that is not prohibited either by our constitution or by a law passed by citizens in due course. It would seem to me that the concept of a citizen's initiative was put into our constitution to prevent this very type of thing from happening.

Rather than argue over the matter we can decide it in a citizen initiative poll I posted on the matter.

 

[DaveShack]

There is something wrong when one official can singlehandely prohibit something as basic as a private poll, something that is not prohibited either by our constitution or by a law passed by citizens in due course. It would seem to me that the concept of a citizen's initiative was put into our constitution to prevent this very type of thing from happening.

Rather than argue over the matter we can decide it in a citizen initiative poll I posted on the matter.

The correct way of handling this is to go through the amendment process. I also note, with considerable disdain, that your new poll is also private. This means that poll is just as invalid as this one is.

I don't know where the crusader mentality came from, but it's getting very annoying.

 

[Swissempire]

I don't know where the crusader mentality came from, but it's getting very annoying.

Enlightenment comes slower to others

 

[donsig]

The correct way of handling this is to go through the amendment process. I also note, with considerable disdain, that your new poll is also private. This means that poll is just as invalid as this one is.

I don't know where the crusader mentality came from, but it's getting very annoying.

So, you're annoyed. Join the club. I've been annoyed most of this whole term.

The correct way? Is that the way explicitly laid out in our laws or is it just the way you think things should be done?

Yes, the new poll is private, as it should be. I don't really think you should be publicly showing your considerable disdain for my privates.