Judicial Log
- Thread starter Chieftess
- Start date
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
DG7JR1 - Will a 4-2 vote by the Governors meet the 67% requirement in CoL F.2?
Ruling: By a 3-0 decision, a strict standard of 67% is to be used. A 4-2 vote is a 66.66~%, and does not meet the standard required in CoL F.2.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice ruling
Link to Judge Advocate ruling
Link to Public Defender ruling
Ruling: By a 3-0 decision, a strict standard of 67% is to be used. A 4-2 vote is a 66.66~%, and does not meet the standard required in CoL F.2.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice ruling
Link to Judge Advocate ruling
Link to Public Defender ruling
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
DG7JR2 - Is the ability of the Governors to overrule the Assembly in CoL F.2 Constitutional?
Ruling: By a 2-1 decision, the ability of Governors to overrule the Assembly in CoL F.2 is Constitutional. The Chief Justice and the Public Defender voted for, with the Judge Advocate voting against.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice ruling
Link to Judge Advocate ruling
Link to Public Defender ruling
Ruling: By a 2-1 decision, the ability of Governors to overrule the Assembly in CoL F.2 is Constitutional. The Chief Justice and the Public Defender voted for, with the Judge Advocate voting against.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice ruling
Link to Judge Advocate ruling
Link to Public Defender ruling
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
DG7JR3 - Who names the a city - the first Governor or the Governor when the city is founded?
Ruling: By a 3-0 decision, the Governor when the city is founded names the city.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice ruling
Link to Judge Advocate ruling
Link to Public Defender ruling
Ruling: By a 3-0 decision, the Governor when the city is founded names the city.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice ruling
Link to Judge Advocate ruling
Link to Public Defender ruling
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
DG7JR4 - Who controls the actions of workers?
Ruling: By a 3-0 decision, Governors may assign tasks to those workers allocated to them by the President.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice's ruling
Link to Judge Advocate's ruling
Link to Public Defender's ruling
Ruling: By a 3-0 decision, Governors may assign tasks to those workers allocated to them by the President.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice's ruling
Link to Judge Advocate's ruling
Link to Public Defender's ruling
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
DG7JR5 - Approval of an Amendment to Section F.2 of the Code of Laws
Ruling: By a 3-0 decision, this amendment passes review.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice's ruling
Link to Judge Advocate's ruling
Link to Public Defender's ruling
Ruling: By a 3-0 decision, this amendment passes review.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice's ruling
Link to Judge Advocate's ruling
Link to Public Defender's ruling
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
DG7JR6 - What happens on a Confirmation Poll if the action has already occurred and is irreversible?
By a 3-0 decision, a Confirmation Poll is null and void if the action permitting the poll has already occurred and is irreversible.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice's ruling
Link to Judge Advocate's ruling
Link to Public Defenders's ruling
By a 3-0 decision, a Confirmation Poll is null and void if the action permitting the poll has already occurred and is irreversible.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice's ruling
Link to Judge Advocate's ruling
Link to Public Defenders's ruling
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
DG7JR7 - What does the phrase "majority of citizens" in Section H.5 of the Code of Laws mean?
By a 2-1 decision, the phrase "majority of citizens" in CoL H.5 refers to the citizens that voted in that poll.
The Chief Justice and Public Defender voted for, with the Judge Advocate voting against.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice's ruling
Link to Judge Advocate's ruling
Link to Public Defenders's ruling
By a 2-1 decision, the phrase "majority of citizens" in CoL H.5 refers to the citizens that voted in that poll.
The Chief Justice and Public Defender voted for, with the Judge Advocate voting against.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice's ruling
Link to Judge Advocate's ruling
Link to Public Defenders's ruling
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
DG7JR8 How should Article 3 of the Constitution be interpreted?
Question: May we take 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may only take 1 city per civ. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.
Question: Question: Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may recapture cities we've founded without counting them as conquering a foreign city. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.
Question: May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may not abandon a city we've conquered to take another city from that civ. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.
Question: If we capture a city, then the civ recaptures that city back, may we recapture that city, any other city the civ has, or no city from that civ?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may recapture cities we've conquered and lost, but may not conquer another city from that civ. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.
Question: If we capture a city from Civ A that was founded by Civ B, and we keep that city, which civ did we take that city from, A (who we conquered it from) or B (who founded it)?
By a 2-0-1 decision, the origin of cities is based on the founder of the city, not the current owner. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice's ruling
Link to Judge Advocate's ruling
Link to Public Defender's ruling
Question: May we take 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may only take 1 city per civ. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.
Question: Question: Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may recapture cities we've founded without counting them as conquering a foreign city. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.
Question: May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may not abandon a city we've conquered to take another city from that civ. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.
Question: If we capture a city, then the civ recaptures that city back, may we recapture that city, any other city the civ has, or no city from that civ?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may recapture cities we've conquered and lost, but may not conquer another city from that civ. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.
Question: If we capture a city from Civ A that was founded by Civ B, and we keep that city, which civ did we take that city from, A (who we conquered it from) or B (who founded it)?
By a 2-0-1 decision, the origin of cities is based on the founder of the city, not the current owner. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.
Link to Ruling by the Court
Link to Chief Justice's ruling
Link to Judge Advocate's ruling
Link to Public Defender's ruling
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
DG7JR9 - May the President issue legal instructions if a leader posts incomplete instructions?
By a 3-0 decision, the President may not issue legal instructions if another leader posts incomplete instructions.
Link to ruling
Link to Chief Justice's ruling
Link to Judge Advocate's ruling
Link to Public Defender's ruling
By a 3-0 decision, the President may not issue legal instructions if another leader posts incomplete instructions.
Link to ruling
Link to Chief Justice's ruling
Link to Judge Advocate's ruling
Link to Public Defender's ruling
DG7JR10 - Do cities that are acquired from a culture flip and then abandoned count towards the one city per civ requirement?
By a 3-0 decision, the court has ruled that cities that are flipped to us and then abandoned immediately do indeed count towards the one city per civ requirment.
Chief Justice's ruling
Judge Advocate's ruling
Public Defender's ruling
By a 3-0 decision, the court has ruled that cities that are flipped to us and then abandoned immediately do indeed count towards the one city per civ requirment.
Chief Justice's ruling
Judge Advocate's ruling
Public Defender's ruling
DG7JR11 - Approval of an amendment to Article C of the Constitution
By a 2-0 decision, an amendment proposed by DaveShack to Article C of the Constitution has failed Judicial Review because it was submitted too early, violating Article N of the Constitution as well as the Judicial Procedures. The Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate voted for this ruling, with the Public Defender not casting a vote. The review was concluded early due to the resubmission of the amendment at such a time that it did not violate Article N, making this review obsolete.
Chief Justice's ruling
Judge Advocate's ruling
By a 2-0 decision, an amendment proposed by DaveShack to Article C of the Constitution has failed Judicial Review because it was submitted too early, violating Article N of the Constitution as well as the Judicial Procedures. The Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate voted for this ruling, with the Public Defender not casting a vote. The review was concluded early due to the resubmission of the amendment at such a time that it did not violate Article N, making this review obsolete.
Chief Justice's ruling
Judge Advocate's ruling
DG7JR12 - Approval of an amendment to Article C (second attempt)
By a 3-0 decision, the Judiciary has ruled that an amendment proposed by DaveShack to article C of the Constitution conflicts with no laws, and therefore passes Judicial Review and will proceed to the polling phase.
Chief Justice's ruling
Judge Advocate's ruling
Public Defender's ruling
By a 3-0 decision, the Judiciary has ruled that an amendment proposed by DaveShack to article C of the Constitution conflicts with no laws, and therefore passes Judicial Review and will proceed to the polling phase.
Chief Justice's ruling
Judge Advocate's ruling
Public Defender's ruling
DG7JR13 - Meaning of "5 cities built" clause - Article C
This ruling was on the interpretation of Article C of the Constitution. It came with two questions. These questions and the rulings the Term 3 Judiciary has made are as follows:
1. Can we rebuild a city that has previously been destroyed?
In a 3-0 ruling, the Judiciary decided that cities that are destroyed by a foreign power can be rebuilt.
2. Can we abandon our own cities and then resettle them?
In a 2-1 decision, the Judiciary ruled that the abandonment of our own cities, with the consent of the people, is constitutional. The Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate voted for this ruling, the Public Defender dissented.
Chief Justice's ruling
Judge Advocate's ruling
Public Defender's ruling
This ruling was on the interpretation of Article C of the Constitution. It came with two questions. These questions and the rulings the Term 3 Judiciary has made are as follows:
1. Can we rebuild a city that has previously been destroyed?
In a 3-0 ruling, the Judiciary decided that cities that are destroyed by a foreign power can be rebuilt.
2. Can we abandon our own cities and then resettle them?
In a 2-1 decision, the Judiciary ruled that the abandonment of our own cities, with the consent of the people, is constitutional. The Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate voted for this ruling, the Public Defender dissented.
Chief Justice's ruling
Judge Advocate's ruling
Public Defender's ruling
DG7JR14 - Missed turnchats
The Judiciary ruled, in a 3-0 decision, that any turnplayer who forget to play his turn and has his session played by another player according to CoL L.1forfeits his turn to play the save.
Chief Justice's ruling
Judge Advocate's ruling
Public Defender's ruling
The Judiciary ruled, in a 3-0 decision, that any turnplayer who forget to play his turn and has his session played by another player according to CoL L.1forfeits his turn to play the save.
Chief Justice's ruling
Judge Advocate's ruling
Public Defender's ruling
DG7JR15 - Amendment to Article I of the Constitution and Creation of Section I.1 of the Code of Laws
By a 3-0 vote, the Judiciary ruled that amendments proposed by DaveShack to Article I of the Constitution and Section I.1 of the Code of Laws conflict with no laws and may proceed to the polling phase.
Chief Justice's ruling
Judge Advocate's ruling
Public Defender's ruling
By a 3-0 vote, the Judiciary ruled that amendments proposed by DaveShack to Article I of the Constitution and Section I.1 of the Code of Laws conflict with no laws and may proceed to the polling phase.
Chief Justice's ruling
Judge Advocate's ruling
Public Defender's ruling
mhcarver
Newspaper Mogul
in this case Daveshack filed a request with the judiciary asking to know who had the power to post the poll for a declaration of war if the Foreign Affairs minister was absent, the court did not speak with one voice on this matter , it ruled 2-1 that the president may post the poll if the FA office and the FA deputy were both absent/vacant, the CJ dissented and ruled only members of the FA department may post polls dealing with going to war
Majority Opinion
Judge Advocates Ruling
Public Defenders Opinion
Minority Opinion
Chief Justice Opinion
Majority Opinion
Judge Advocates Ruling
Public Defenders Opinion
Minority Opinion
Chief Justice Opinion