Judicial Review - Term 1 - DGIVJR4

[Cyc]

donsig has requested a Judicial Review. Below is his request.

I hereby formally request a Judicial Review to determine if CoS section J applies to our Senators.

Section J of the CoS reads as follows:

J. Absenteeism
1. The Deputy for a position may post instructions for that position should no instructions be posted within 24 hours of the scheduled start of the game play session.
a. The office holder may not post instructions should they return once the deputy has posted instructions.

2. Should an Executive or Legislative leader fail to post instructions for 2 consecutive game play sessions, without posting in the official absence thread, any citizen may request that the office be declared abandoned by creating a thread in the Citizen forum.
a. The Chief Justice shall then send a PM to the office holder, notifying them of the request.
b. The Chief Justice shall then post in the request thread that the PM has been sent.
c. Should the office holder fail to reply by posting in the request thread within 96 hours of the PM, the office holder is removed and the office is considered vacant.
3. Should a Judicial leader fail to respond to an official post or message within 96 hours, without posting in the official absence thread, any member of the Judiciary may request that the office be declared abandoned by creating a thread in the Citizen forum.
a. A member of the Judiciary shall then send a PM to the office holder, notifying them of the request.
b. The Justice that made the request shall then post in the request thread that the PM has been sent.
c. Should the office holder fail to reply by posting in the request thread within 96 hours of the PM, the office holder is removed and the office is considered vacant.
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.
b. Should the Deputy fail to post instructions while so empowered, the Designated Player shall perform the actions of that office as they deem to be within the Will of the People, using such information as is available to them.
c. A member of the Judiciary, subject to approval by the other members of the Judiciary, may appoint any citizen, not already an elected official or deputy to an elected official, to serve in their office until they return.
__________________________________________

The following Section of the CoS, Section X.1.III governs this Citizen’s Discussion.

II. Public Discussion
A. The Chief Justice shall create a new thread in the Citizen’s Forum
entitled “Judicial Review – Term <term number> - Request <request number
for that term>”
B. The first post shall contain the formal question and law involved
1. The Chief Justice may rewrite the question so long as the meaning
is not altered. Any changes should be discussed with the requestor.
C. All Citizens are then invited to discuss the question.
D. Justices are to post questions, but not conclusions.
E. Discussion continues until the Chief Justice declares arguments over.
1. The Associate Justices may overrule if they both agree to do so. They
may also declare halt to arguments if they both agree and Chief Justice
is not willing to end the discussions.
_________________________________________

Please abide by the code above and discuss your feelings on the issue at hand.

 

[DaveShack]

I'm sure that donsig can argue his case himself, however I'd like to get first word in to say that I can see why he would request this review. One way of reading "Should an Executive or Legislative leader fail to post instructions for 2 consecutive game play sessions" would be to focus primarily on "post instructions" and assume that this section is intended to apply only to those who are empowered to post instructions. Taken that way, since the VP is responsible for posting the senate decisions, from the Senate only the VP would be subject to this rule.

My interpretation focuses on "Executive or Legislative leader" and takes a slightly broader interpretation of "post instructions" I think that voting in the Senate poll for slider settings is a form of posted instruction, because it directly requires the VP to post that instruction. The VP is merely the messenger. No offense is intended to the current VP, that's just my broad-based reading of the complete body of law as opposed to an individual phrase in a single line of the law.

 

[ravensfire]

I believe this section applies to all Senators of Fanatica, both those with provinces to manage, and those At-Large.

The At-Large Governors have the immediate responsibility to control the purse-strings of Fanatica. As such, they are directly involved with the creation of instructions.

To make an arguement directly on point, At-Large Governors are elected official in the Legislative branch, thus falling squarely under the authority of the Absenteeism section of the of Standards.

For these reasons, I feel the Judiciary should find that the Absenteeism section of the Code of Standards DOES apply to all members of the Senate, including At-Large Govenors.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Clause 2 of CoS Section J reads as follows:

2. Should an Executive or Legislative leader fail to post instructions for 2 consecutive game play sessions, without posting in the official absence thread, any citizen may request that the office be declared abandoned by creating a thread in the Citizen forum.

Applying this to leaders who are not empowered to post instructions is neither fair nor legal under the legal principles generally accepted for this demogame.

I refer here to the structure of the Three Books that we agreed to. The constitution was intended to be general and subject to interpretation. It was further agreed that the Code of Laws would be more specific in nature, serving to clarify the constitution to some extent thereby reducing the need for interpretation of the constitution somewhat. Our Code of Standards was meant to be even more specific to further clarify what was intended by the Code of Laws thus reducing the need for interpreting the Code of Laws.

In this scheme of things the Code of Standards is the final level, that which should not need any interpretation. The buck stops at the CoS so to speak. When invoking the CoS we are down to the nitty-gritty technicalities of the rules, a place where there is no room for interpretations. A place where we should not concern ourselves with intentions but with what is actually written.

I would like to remind everyone now that this is a Judicial Review and not a Citizen Complaint. We are not here in this thread for the purpose of assessing any innocence or guilt. We are here to do two things. First, to discuss the application of a particular section of the CoS to specific offices and second, to discuss and perhaps suggest constructive changes that might be made in this section of the CoS.

As far as the application of this section to Senators I argue that it does not apply for Senators cannot legally post slider instructions. Only the VP (as President of the Senate) can be called to account for not posting slider instructions for it is that officer and only that officer who is legally empowered to post those instrucitons. As stated earlier in this post, it is my firm belief that when applying the CoS we must adhere to what is written.

That said, I would like to move on to the second function of a Judicial Review of this kind. This is where intentions of the law makers should be discussed. Yes, I believe that it was the intention to have Senators also accountable under an absenteeism clause. Personally, I think it is desirable to make them as accountable as our other leaders. Unfortunately, the CoS, as written, does not do that. It is my suggestion that we amend the CoS section on absenteeism, inserting a clause specific to Senators to rectify this glitch in our laws. That is the proper remedy for fixing the CoS, not Judicial interpretations of the CoS, made by three justices, which will have the force of law. In the spirit of the demogame we should keep the law making firmly in the Congress's hands and not the Judiciary's

 

[ravensfire]

As part of their review, I strongly request that the Judiciary consider the following related question: "What defines a Leader" as it pertains to the section in question. Further, I ask the Judiciary determine if that is a general definition that can be used throughout the ruleset, and verify that such a definition is consistent with current, ratified law.

Such actions would greatly benefit the People of Fanatica and help prevent future Judicial Review on similar grounds.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I think that the Governors were most definately intended to be considered leaders, and part of the legislative branch of government. Focusing on one area of the law that is really imho intended to denote responsibilities of the VP does not convince me that the standing of any Governor is reduced in the eyes of our nation, or the law.

Now intentions are all good, but the judicary will need to decide if there is sufficient actual law to support such an intention.

 

[Cyc]

As Chief Justice, I am declaring Arguements Over. Hopefully, Private Discussion will take place on the matter later today.

I am asking the Associate Justices to respond to the PM with a confirmation of chat room time. Thanks in advance.

CJ Cyc

 

[Cyc]

A Majority Opinion on this topic has been posted in the Term 1 Judicial Thread.