Judicial Log

Cyc filed a Judicial Review on the question if the Judiciary has the power to invalidate an existing law. The Judiciary affirms that it has this power, and details what actions should be taken when an existing law is invalidated.

This review was unanimous for the first part, and divided for the second part.

The Judiciary derives it’s powers from the Constitution and the Code of Laws. From Article F of the Constitution, “…tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws…” From Section D.2.c of the Code of Laws, “…participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards.”

The conflict creating this Judicial Review is over the actions of the Judiciary in T2-JR4 in invalidating Section J.1.d of the Code of Laws. As Article F states, the Judiciary is charged with upholding the laws of Fanatica. However, Article B of the Constitution states that “No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles, excepting an Amendment specifically tasked to do so.” Clearly, the Articles of the Constitution are the primary source of Law for Fanatica – all other laws must prevent conflicts with those Articles.

In T2-JR4, the Judiciary found that J.1.d did create a conflict with a higher body of law, and did not have a means to resolve that conflict. A lower body of law cannot create a conflict with a higher body of law without a means existing within law to resolve that conflict. Given the conflict, the decision to invalidate the law was both proper and within the powers of the Judiciary.

We affirm that the Judiciary has the power to invalidate existing law if the existing law is interpreted to conflict with an higher law where no means exists within law to resolve that conflict.

The second, ancillary question concerned the actions that should be taken once a law is invalidated.

The Court differed in its opinion on this matter. Per the request of the dissenting Justice, both opinions are detailed here.

All Justices concur that once a law is invalidated, it no longer has any power over Fanatica. We further agree that this information needs to be clearly made noticeable to the Citizens of Fanatica. Part of the duties of the Judiciary from Section D.2.c is to clarify existing law. By extension, this includes the presentation of the books of law for the Citizens of Fanatica.

Justices Ravensfire and donsig prefer the removal of any invalidated law from the books of Fanatica. The primary reason for this is clarity – a citizen should be able to review the books of law, and know that all laws listed are in force. Any other method could leave open the chance of a mis-interpretation by a citizen.

Justice Peri prefers that all laws remain on the books of Fanatica, including invalidated laws. All invalidated laws should be clearly and conspicuously denoted as invalid.

By a 2-1 vote, dissenting opinion above, the Court clarifies that all invalidated laws should be removed from the books of Fanatica.

 

As requested by Chieftess

Prosecutor: Strider
Defense: Bootstoots

The Citizen's Complaint filed against Shalashaska by Chieftess has been resolved.

Sort of.

After examining the results of the Investigation, the Court determine that there was enough evidence for a reasonable chance that the Accused did break Fanatican law as detailed in the Complaint, thus the Court has Accepted the Complaint. The Court did have reservations about the possible knowledge of future or alternative events that would be part of the trial. With this in mind, a remedy was discussed that would have forbidden Shalashaska from communicating any information gained from playing the save.

Unfortunately, all means of communication have been disabled by Shalashaska. Even the efforts of a moderator were met with no results.

Therefore, the case against Shalashaska is hereby postponed indefinitely. Should he wish to continue to participate as a Citizen of Fanatica, and the Court sincerely hopes he does, this case will be reopened by the Court at that point in time. The Complaint has been Accepted, so the next step will be to determine if a remedy is acceptable to all involved. As a starting point, the following Remedy was accepted by the Prosecutor, the Defense and the Court. We offer this merely as a suggestion.

The Court gratefully thanks Strider and Bootstoots for serving as Advocates in this case. We also thank those citizens serving as witnesses for their honesty and willingness to act without the use of the knowledge gained in participating in discussion.

This matter is now closed, pending the return of Shalashaska to the DG.

 

donsig requested a Judicial Review questioning the legality of CoS M.1.d.2:

Code:

2. All proceedings started under one Court shall 
       continue with that Court through the conclusion of 
       that proceeding.

If CoS M.1.d.2 were followed, Judiciary members would serve an indeterminable term. It is not know how long they will serve until they finish the cases that were presented to them. It is possible that, given a case of sufficent magnitude, a Judicary could serve well beyond it's fixed date to end.

This presents a conflict with Article G of the Constitution which specifies that all elected positions shall have a fixed term. This court finds this Article to mean that a term's length is known and quantifiable at any time. Under CoS M.1.d.2, this is not the case.

Therefore, we find CoS M.1.d.2 to be in violation of the Constitution and thus null and void.

This ruling was supported by a 2-0 vote of Justices zorven and Vander.

edited reference to CoS section to be more accurate.

 

Donsig has requested the following Judicial Review:

This court took the perspective of what laws were in effect when the various elections began. The original elections for Chief Justice (CJ) and the Associate Justices (AJ) were begun after Article G was in force.

Code:

Article G:
All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All vacant 
            elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a 
            citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

At the end of this election (Dec 31), a tie for CJ existed. CoL F and CoL H deal with vacant positions and tied elections, but they did not become law until Jan 1 and Jan 5 (respectively).

Code:

CoL F.5.a:
a.  Should more than one citizen tie with the highest 
        totals, a run-off election lasting 2 days shall be 
        immediately posted listing only the tied citizens.

Code:

CoL H.1:
1.  Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election 
      shall be filled via appointment by the President. 

At this point the CJ position is vacant as there was no winner, and 2 people cannot hold one office. Therefore, the CJ should have been appointed according Article G. However, Article G did not specifiy who should make the appointment and thus cannot be carried out. So we now have a vacant position and no law dictating how to fill a vacant position. The next thing to happen is that CoL F becomes law (Jan 1). It specifies that tied elections are to be decided using a special election. But this does not apply to our situation because at the time CoL F becomes law the elections are over. CoL cannot be applied retroactively to the election. We still have a vacant office. Next, CoL H becomes law (Jan 5). CoL H says that Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election are to be appointed by the President. This can be applied to the current situation, and thus the CJ should be appointed by the President.

HOWEVER, before CoL H became law, the moderators authorized a special election to fill the CJ position. This special election began and ended before CoL H became law and thus the CJ position was not vacant when CoL H became law.

OPINION
At the time of the special election was held, we had an unfilled leader position that could not be resolved under the current laws. The moderators made a decision to hold a special election in order for the game to continue. As the actions of the moderators were not contradicting existing law, and the moderators were acting in their official capacity to ensure a functioning game, we find that the special election for Chief Justice stands.

This opinion is supported by a 3-0 vote of Justices zorven, Vander, and DaveShack.

 

donsig has requested the following Judicial Review:

This review was prompted by the well-intentioned efforts of one president to orchestrate a transfer of power to the next term's president, by scheduling a turn chat which spanned the end of one term and beginning of the next. Some equally well-intentioned leaders-elect decided that if turns would be played while they were responsible, they would be duty bound to provide instructions, thus instructions were posted before the preceeding term ended.

Looking more closely at the law, it is apparent that posting of instructions before a term begins is logically impossible, if all pertinent laws are followed.

Code:

CoL F.3:
3.  The following offices shall have one calendar month
      terms, beginning on the first day of that month
    a.  President
    b.  Minister of Internal Affairs
    c.  Minister of Defense
    d.  Minister of Foreign Affairs
    e.  Minister of Trade and Technology
    f.  Chief Justice
    g.  2 Associate Justice 
    h.  1 Provincial Governor per Province
    i.  At-Large Govenors, if needed

Code:

CoL I:
I.  Legal Instructions
  1.  A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the 
      turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior 
      to the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered 
      to do so, within the limitations of the office the 
      citizen is representing.

OPINION
According to CoL F.3, a Leader's term does not begin until the 1st day of the month. It is at this time that the citizen becomes empowered to post legal instructions. Any posts made by this citizen prior to the 1st of the month are merely posts by a citizen and carry no weight of the office to which the citizen has been elected, even if the content of the post was meant to be valid after the beginning of the month.

This opinion is supported by a 3-0 vote of Justices zorven, Vander, and DaveShack.

 

donsig has requested the following Judicial Review:

Section N of the Code of Standards:

Code:

1. Polls to amend the Code of Standards shall be posted by 

The question presented by donsig is whether or not a Judicial Review was performed before this proposal was posted. For this, we must also look to CoS M.2:

Code:

2.  Judicial Review of a Proposed Law
  a.  As citizens, the members of the Judiciary should be 
      active during any discussion of a new law.
  b.  Once a final proposal has been made and agreed upon 
      for a proposed Law, the Chief Justice should post in 
      the discussion thread that the Judiciary will review 
      the law and the text of the law to be reviewed. 
  c.  The Judiciary will then meet privately to discuss the 
      law.
  d.  If the proposed law passes review, the Chief Justice 
      shall post the poll for the proposed law in the Poll 
      sub-forum.
    1.  A majority of Justices must agree that the proposed 
        law does not conflict with any existing law or 
        constitutional article for it to pass review
  e.  If the proposed law does not pass review, the Chief 
      Justice shall post in the discussion thread the 
      reasons for the rejection.
    1.  Should a poll already be posted for this proposal, 
        the poll is deemed void.

Majority Opinion
CoS N requires a proposed law pass Judicial Review before being posted by the Judiciary. CoS M.2 requires that proposed laws that pass Judicial Reveiw be posted as a poll by the Chief Justice. CoS M.2 lists no other requirements for passed JR's. The fact that the Chief Justice posted the poll is implicit evidence that the Judicial Review passed. The only exception to this would be if both Associate Justices declared that the proposed law did not pass Judicial Review, which did not happen in this case. The poll cited by donsig stands.

This opinion is supported 3-0 by justices Zarn, Zorvan, and gert-janl.

 

zorven has requested the following Judicial Review:

Section G of the Code of Laws

Code:

G.  Chain of Command 
  1.  Determines the Designated Player if the President is 
      unavailable for the turn chat. 
    a.  If no citizen in the CoC is present at the game play 
        session, the session shall be ended.
  
  2.  Settles departmental jurisdiction conflicts. 
  
  3.  COC 
    a.  President 
    b.  Vice President 
    c.  Minister of Internal Affairs
    d.  Minister of Defense
    e.  Minister of Foreign Affairs
    f.  Minister of Trade and Technology

Section K of the Code of Standards

Code:

K.
4.  Should an office holder post that they will be absent 
      for a certain time period, the Deputy is empowered 
      with all duties and responsibilities of the position 
      for that period.
    a.  The Deputy shall relinquish all such powers upon 
        return of the office holder.

Majority Opinion
CoL G explicity defines only those Leaders that are allowed to play the save game. It thus excludes all other Leaders, positions, and citizens. While CoS K grants Leader duties and responsibilites to a deputy, this would directly conflict with the explicit listing in CoL G in regards to playing the save game. When a conflict arises between the 3 Books, the "higher" Book takes precedent. In this case that would mean that the explicit list in CoL G cannot be expanded upon by CoS K. Therefore, deputies of Leaders in the Chain of Command may not play the save game.

This opinion is supported 3-0 by justices Zarn, Zorvan, and gert-janl.

 

Ravensfire has requested a judicial review:

Under Articles D and J (most especially J) of the Constitution, and Section B. 2.e.2 of the Code of Laws, is this* a valid instruction?

*A governor requested a great wonder to be put on the queue, doing the Ministry of Interior's job. Citizens were not calling for the wonder build, but did not go against it.

The Constitution

Code:

Article D.  The Executive branch is responsible for determining 
            and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
            by thePresident who shall be the primary Designated 
            Player. The President shall take direction from a 
            council of 4 leaders and from other elected and appointed 
            officials via the turnchat instruction thread.
              1.  The Minister of Internal Affairs shall be 
                  responsible for all domestic and cultural 
                  initiatives, as prescribed by law.

Code:

Article J.  Elected officials must plan and act according to the will 
            of the people.

The Code of Laws- Section B. 2.e.

Code:

2. (The Ministry of Internal Affairs) Is responsible for wonder building, including prebuilds.

Majority Opinion
Governors do not have the power to change queues to wonders, as that is under jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the governor. Since the Ministry of Internal Affairs has posted a similar instruction, it is allowed in this case; however, if the Ministry of Internal Affairs is against building the wonder, then the governor cannot put it into queue. They both must agree on building the wonder. The only way a governor can override the Minister of Internal Affairs is when the governor has citizen support through a poll as the Ministry of Internal Affairs would not be going by the will of the people.

The people have not voiced approval of the governor’s decision, but the governor has given the people four days to discuss it, and there was not a dissenting voice. If there was a dissenting voice, it would have been appropriate for the governor to poll the queue. A citizen has to dissent to force the governor to open a poll.

Minority Opinion
A wonder build requires both the governor and MIA to post the instruction. It is not illegal for a governor to post the instruction if the MIA does not, it just becomes an invalid order.

The will of the people should be determined in CC’s not through judicial reviews and therefore abstain.

This case was decided in a 2-1 vote with Justice Zarn and Justice gert-janl in the majority and Justice Zorvan in the minority.

 

Peri:

Article A of the Constitution guarantees the right of any
citizen to discuss any issue. Similarly anyone may post a poll on
any topic. However the crucial aspect of this Judicial Review
is 'who may order the change of government in the TCIT'?
Responsibility for this is not specified in the 'Three Books'.
However it is an issue which is solely 'Domestic' in nature. Article
D.1 of the Constitution provides for this. Also the preamble for
Article D articulates that the President takes instruction from the
4 Leaders. Nevertheless CoL B.1.f is clear that the President
assumes responsibility for all initiatives not specified as the
responsibility of another leader.

This court (Term 3) rules that the the Minister of Internal Affairs has the
authority to post turn orders, in accordance with the will of the
citizenry of Fanatica, specifying when a revolution may be held,
and the type of government that should be chosen when that
revolution is over.

This was supported by Justices Peri and Daveshack of Term 3.