Office of the Judiciary - Term 5

Hmm... I may have a cunning plan for a more streamlined, efficient and less bulky constitution, but since I haven't tried putting it down in writing yet I may find it doesn't actually work or is simply a very stupid idea. Think I'll have a go at writing up a first draft this week to see if it's even worth consideration. If it is then I'll post it up for discussion. If it isn't then this post will be edited to cheat people of concrete evidence that I'm a fool ;)
 
eklek: we already know you are a fool ;-) so go forward and post the proposal.... see my thread in citizen forum :-P
 
On another note, in accordance with the passage of the amendment to change Article I of the constitution, I hereby post the new census.

The current census of the Phoenatican Nation is 41.
Therefore, the qurourm for the passage of new laws shall be 21. I ask Shaitan to update the first post if this thread with the new number.
 
It was the bells on my Public Defending hat that gave me away, wasn't it... :p :crazyeye:
 
Please review the set of 4 polls in this post.

If approved through review all except the Cabinet Vote will be posted by the Judiciary. Please note that there should be no closure date set in the poll options for the two standard polls.

Thank you. :)
 
Judge Advocate Review -
Proposed Change to Code of Standards - Section A

Forum Organization

In accordance with Section E, Point 6, multiple subsections, of the Phoenatican Code of Laws, I submit the Judge Advocate review of this proposal.

Findings: The JA office has determined that this format would not be a violation of the Constitution, Code of Laws, or Code of Standards.

Therefore I cast my vote in favor of allowing a vote for passage.

The Senate Vote for this measure is here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30243

Explaination: None required. The format of these forums is within the rights of the moderator to determine, and is largely built upon the existing structure with welcome enhancements made via citizen input.

Other Comments: I take Judicial note that this is a vote, not a poll, and therefore the failure to link to relavant discussion is not enough to invalidate this vote.

Bill
Judge Advocate of Phoenatica
 
I request Judical Review of Code of Standards, Section H, Point 8.b.

The wording is a bit vague, but my interpretation is that the poll for punishment is meant to be multiple choice, with a single selection. Not multiple select.

I'd like my fellow Judiciary members to post their reviews, given that we have a possibility of this poll being used in the next several hours.

Here is my official review:

Judge Advocate Review -
Code of Standards - Section H

Sentencing Poll

In accordance with Section E, Point 2.a., of the Phoenatican Code of Laws, I submit the Judge Advocate review of this Standard.

Issue: The CoS calls for posting of a poll with "multiple choices" when sentencing is held. This review is needed to determine if that phrase requires a multiple select poll or multiple choice.

The Standard reads:

Point 8 If the suspect is found guilty through the trial poll, a sentencing poll is held.
a The sentencing poll will remain up for 72 hours
b The polls for Constitution and Code of Laws violations will be set to allow multiple choices.

The follow on points then list specifically what those choices are to be, based upon the violation the offender has been found guilty of.

Finding: This office finds that the requirement outlined in subsection b is calling for a multiple choice poll with only a single select vote.

Explaination: This format matches the intent of Sentencing, that being selecting the punishment mandated by the people.

Multiple simultaneous sentencing options are not logical in this case, as they may conflict with each other, or simple add up to a higher sentence than is originally intended by voters.

Bill
Judge Advocate of Phoenatica
 
Public Defender's Review -
Code of Standards - Section H

I concur with the Judge Advocate's review above. I'm pretty certain the idea was to offer a multiplicity of choices from which the citizens must pick one. An actual "multiple choice" poll would not appear to make sense, given the intent of a sentencing poll.
 
Office of Chief Justice
Judicial Review
Section H, Point 8, paragraph b

The Office of Chief Justice agrees with the other two offices. The idea was to make offer multiple choices, from which the citizens were to chose one.

I've got a lot of updating to the Judicial Log to do...
 
I request a Judicial Review for Section G, Point 6, Item A, paragraph 2, and Section G, Point 6, Item C.
Section G, Point 6, Item A, paragraph 2 states:
(presidential eligiblity) This restriction is lifted in the first term as there are no current officials
Click to expand...
Section G, Point 6, Item C states:
Incumbent leaders may run for 1 position in each election cycle. Other citizens may run for 2 positions in each election cycle.
Click to expand...

Section A indicates that there are no leaders at the beginning of term 1. Does that mean that the incumbentcy does not apply in the first term?

Chief Justice Review
Section G, Point 6, Item C

My thought is that, being a new game in term one, that these two standards mean that first of all, everybody may run for two positions, and that anyone can run for president.

Notes: I wanted to call for this review to avoid any confusion that may occur in the upcoming elections.
 
Public Defender's review
Section G, Point 6, Item C

Simply put, I completely agree with Octavian X's above review. It's a new game, nobody has a position in it yet, so thus nobody can be considered to be an incumbent.
 
Judge Advocate Review -
Code of Laws - Section G

Elections in Term 1

In accordance with Section E, Point 2.a., of the Phoenatican Code of Laws, I submit the Judge Advocate review of this Law.

Finding: This office finds that the term 1 laws described in this section do apply to the start of a new game, and therefore should be in effect for the next election cycle.

Explaination: The clear intent of this section is to start new each game, therefore the law applies as if it were day one.

Bill
Judge Advocate of Phoenatica
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Eyswein
  • Sticky
6otM195 Announcement
Replies
0
Views
460
Eyswein
Eyswein
Eyswein
  • Sticky
7otM07 Announcement
Replies
16
Views
863
Berrern
Berrern
zenmaster
Is the Hall of Fame down long term?
Replies
3
Views
691
billybgame
B
Eyswein
7otM05 Announcement
Replies
6
Views
1K
leif erikson
leif erikson
Eyswein
6otM194 Announcement
Replies
0
Views
905
Eyswein
Eyswein
Back
Top Bottom