JR 6-1 Discussion : Right to hold an office

[DaveShack]

I think we'll start off with a JR on the Constitution.

Case 6-1
Article B - Citizens
2. All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
c. The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
Question: Does Article B section 2c of the Constitution mean that a citizen has the right to be eligible to hold any office at a given point in time, or does it mean the right to hold some office?

Now open for citizen comments.

Edit: forgot to follow my own doctrine on clearly defined end dates.
Citizens are encouraged to post their comments within the next 48 hours, to ensure they will be heard prior to a ruling.

 

[DaveShack]

If the court found that a citizen has a right to hold any office at a given point in time, it would invalidate all restrictions on holding multiple offices.

A point of historical fact is that most, probably all previous DemoGames have had restrictions on how many offices a single individual could hold. Usually the restriction has been exactly one office, or exactly two offices.

 

[Black_Hole]

Your question is two parted
As I see it there is only 1 real question, unless you made a typo.

Does Article B section 2c of the Constitution mean that a citizen has the right to be eligible to hold any office at a given point in time,

This is the real question in my opinion

or does it mean the right to hold some office?

It is obvious that the article talks about eligibility to hold office, not the right to hold office, so the second part is a definite no.

As I see it, the question is :

Does Article B section 2c give citizens the right to eligibility for all offices?

 

[DaveShack]

Good point, that's a typo. The 2nd part should read "eligible to hold some office".

Does Article B section 2c give citizens the right to eligibility for all offices?

The way you've rephrased it is missing the distinction between being eligible to hold any office at any point in time, or only being eligible to hold some offices at that point in time.

A different way to rephrase the question is with its contra-positive:

Can a citizen be restricted from being eligible for holding some offices at a particular point in time, provided
a. that restriction does not prevent the citizen from being eligible to hold every office at that point in time, and
b. that restriction does not prevent the citizen from being eligible to hold a particular office at any point in time.

In my opinion, the effects of answering this question are:

• If yes, then term limits and limits on the number of offices a citizen may hold are valid. Additionally, limits on the number of nominations a citizen may accept and limits on who may apply for appointment to open positions would be valid. Further, a key protection is maintained that no citizen can permanently be prohibited from holding an office, other than by moderators as a result of forum rules enforcement.
• If no, then term limits and lmits on number of offices would be rendered invalid.

 

[Black_Hole]

Well, term limits and multiple offices caps definetly deny eligibility to a citizen for certain office(s), however this article may be speaking generally.

Also Mr. Chief Justice, I don't believe historical facts have anything to do with this ruling.

So here is a question for everyone (this is hypothetical):
If a citizen is eligible for only one office, does this fulfill their right to be eligible for public office?

 

[Oldbus]

I look at a problem like this rather differently. Personally, I like the fact that we have been playing with a 2 term limit on elected offices and that you can only hold one elected office at once (unless an office is vacant and no-one else is interested) is a good thing. It prevents a small clique having too much power and gives us variety of policy, while allowing things to continue working if interest in the DG wanes for a period.

The fact that this discussion is happening implies that at best our laws are not clear enough. I suggest that if others feel the same way then someone (with hopefully better skills than me at writing laws) drafts an amendment to our Constitution and/or CoL to make it clear. If there are others who disagree with me, then I suggest you draft an alternative clear amendment.

Lets put this to the vote as soon as possible so we all know where we stand and can move on.

 

[DaveShack]

Good question, Black_Hole. I'll refrain from answering, I'd prefer to see what the response is free from leading answers.

As I stated in my campaign speech, I tend to consider the meaning of a law to have more relevance than the text of the law, in this Democracy Game setting. In that respect, history is indeed significant, to the extent that in close cases, lack of evidence that the people want to deviate from the past is equal in value to evidence that they want to continue the past.

 

[DaveShack]

The fact that this discussion is happening implies that at best our laws are not clear enough.

Actually, this particular law may indeed be clear enough. The problem is that other decisions have been made which quote this law without exploring its actual meaning, so the purpose of this Judicial Review is to determine that meaning.

 

[donsig]

The constitution is (or should have been) written so that it can be flexible, or in other words, allow for different interpretations. The reason for having a flexible document is so that we don't have to rewrite the blasted thing every time a new demo game starts. With that in mind, it is appropriate to discuss how we want to interpret various clauses in this demogame. I don't think it's appropriate for the CJ to ask for a JR for such interpretations. Especially when it is well known that the previous judiciary made a ruling the current CJ does not like. Asking for a JR to try to overturn a previous judicial ruling is not cricket old chap. (I guess I could quote our ex-President's words here about the judiciary making law from the bench.)

The proper way to decide how we (those of us playing the democracy game) want this clause interpreted in this game, would be to start a citizen discussion about it. If there is concensus then draft and pass a law reflecting that interpretation. If discussion does not provide a concensus then hold a citizen's initiative on the subject.

The ruling we made last term was made to the best of our ability and it is the correct ruling. It was not a case we initiated ourselves in order to be able to rule the way we wanted. I do not want to say judiciary members should not be instigating JRs but I am willing to say they should do so with caution and certainly should not do so in order to legislate from the bench.

As for how we want to interpret this cluase in this DG, I'd say we should be as general as possible. Simply giving a citizen a chance to hold an office should not be a basis for our laws. Citizens should have the right to be eligible for as many offices as possible. We should interpret this clause to disallow term limits but to prevent citizens from holding multiple offices.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Especially when it is well known that the previous judiciary made a ruling the current CJ does not like. Asking for a JR to try to overturn a previous judicial ruling is not cricket old chap.

Could you link to either the discussion or the ruling that you are refering to in your post?

 

[donsig]

Could you link to either the discussion or the ruling that you are refering to in your post?

Here's the judicial log link. The case I referred to was the CoL amendment JR from last term.

Here is one post in last term's judicial thread showing how the current CJ felt about our ruling. You will find similar posts from him in the same thread.

 

[DaveShack]

Especially when it is well known that the previous judiciary made a ruling the current CJ does not like. Asking for a JR to try to overturn a previous judicial ruling is not cricket old chap.

The ruling we made last term was made to the best of our ability and it is the correct ruling. It was not a case we initiated ourselves in order to be able to rule the way we wanted.

The purpose of this JR is to rule on whether it is OK to have restrictions on the right to be eligible to hold an office, or if no such restrictions are OK. That is the only question before the court.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Thank you Donsig. I didn't realize this case had so much to do with the one I brought up last term.

I'm ready to rule when the other justices are ready.

 

[DaveShack]

It appears there are no more citizen comments or questions on this case, so this discussion is closed. Justices are asked to make their ruling in the Judiciary thread.