OFFICIAL: Article 3 Debate Thread-The Judiciary

[Aramazd]

This thread is for debate and proposals to change Article 3
Article 3: The Judiciary

Section 1
The Judiciary consists of the Supreme Court (SC), which is a panel of three judges.

Section 2
3 MPs appointed by the PM and approved by the Parliament will serve as judges on the Supreme Court. The 1st Judge appointed will serve one month, the 2nd for 2 months, and the 3rd for 3 months. All subsequent judges will serve terms of 3 months.
The first Supreme Court will take office 2 weeks after the PM is elected.

Section 3
A nominated SC Judge may serve while waiting for confirmation. If a nominated Judge is not approved, he may no longer serve and the PM must nominate someone else for the position of SC Judge.

Section 4
Decisions within the Supreme Court are made by a majority of the three judges. Unanimity is not required.

Section 5
If an MP believes that a law is unconstitutional, or another MP has violated the law of Civilitas, he may take his case to the Supreme Court. The MP who brought the matter before the Court must prosecute the case. If the case brought before the court is about an unconstitutional law, the MP who proposed the law must argue for the defense. In the case of an absence the SC may appoint someone to the defense. If the case is that an MP violated the law of Civilitas, the accused must defend himself. The accused cannot be tried in absentia.

Section 6
Supreme Court judges may be impeached for misconduct in office.
A majority of 3/4 of voting members is required to impeach SC judges.

Section 7
Judges retain their seat in the Parliament .

 

[Red Door]

Section 1 - Fine
Section 2 - I would extend the time to 2 months, or at the very least, 1 and a half months.
Section 2 (repeated) - I would say that this period be extended to 3 weeks or a month.
Section 3 - Agreed
Section 4 - Agreed
Section 5 - I don't think the GMs should be able to override the decision, I don't think they should be involved in this process at all.
Section 6 - Agreed
Section 7 - I don't think they should be included as a MP when acting as a SC Judge.

 

[Perfection]

Section 2 - I agree with Red Door that the terms should be longer but I'd go with 3 months. We'll stagger them like they did with senate seats in new states in the US so the first 3 judges would be apointed for 1 month, 2months and 3months.

Section 5 - I agree with Red Door, we're above all laws in the game, that's an implied rule it doesn't need to be explicitly stated.

Section 7 - losing out on 3 MPs, especially active ones is a big deal. We definitely should allow them to retain thier seats. We probably should include 2 additional seats for if any of the judges are absent or there is a conflict of interest.

 

[h4ppy]

Agree with Perf on Section 7, Red Door on Section 2, and both on Section 5.

 

[Perfection]

Well, whatever timeframe we do, we should stagger initial terms to ensure that any PM can't take all the members of the Judiciary.

 

[Provolution]

Section 1
The Judiciary consists of the Supreme Court (SC), which is a panel of three judges.

Approved

Section 2
3 MPs appointed by the PM and approved by the Parliament will serve as judges on the Supreme Court for a term of 1 month.
The first Supreme Court will take office 2 weeks after the PM is elected.

It would destroy the balance of power if the PM could decide on all three the same term. We should have judges for "lifetime" (for game purposes anyways), where the PM can decide on a new judge each term. Thus, the "lifespan" of each judge would be three terms on the average. This would create interesting situations, like we see in the US Supreme Court. However, the GMs are free to decide on the "Lifespan" of said judge, in case they want one to live longer or shorter in order to drive the story.

Section 2
If the Supreme Court has a vacancy for longer than 14 days and the MP & PM can not agree on a new judge for the SC a GM can a temporary judge until a new term begins.

Approved, but should be a week, since the judges are critical

Section 3
Decisions within the Supreme Court are made by a majority of the three judges. Unanimity is not required.

Approved

Section 4
The Supreme Court Judges are the first resort for questions about the Constitution. Only if after having conferred with them, the matter is still unclear, should an MP address the GMs.

Approved

Section 5
Only the GMs may override a Supreme Court decision.

Approved, but the override should be explained to the players.

Section 6
Supreme Court judges may be impeached for misconduct in office.
A majority of 3/4 of voting members is required to impeach SC judges.

Approved

Section 7
Judges retain their seat in the Parliament .

Approved, but we need to look into this, for the separation of powers. I suggest this is only temporary, and when we get more players, justices can be taken from non MPs. This could be a way to recruit new players.
Ideally, the Judges should be powerful enough to not want a seat in parliament. It should be a popular position, and an exclusive one.

 

[Equuleus]

I vote a strong NO on Section 5.

 

[Equuleus]

Section 2
If the Supreme Court has a vacancy for longer than 14 days and the MP & PM can not agree on a new judge for the SC a GM can a temporary judge until a new term begins

If this means a GM is needed to OK a SC judge I am a NO vote on this

Section 4
The Supreme Court Judges are the first resort for questions about the Constitution. Only if after having conferred with them, the matter is still unclear, should an MP address the GMs.

I vote NO GMs should not be involved in this.

 

[downtown]

Im with Perf.

 

[Aramazd]

If this means a GM is needed to OK a SC judge I am a NO vote on this

It means that if no SC Judge is approved a GM will fill in.

I vote NO GMs should not be involved in this.

That is only if the Judges still aren't sure, then consulting the GMs (Me and Perf) might be a good idea.


I'll be making the changes proposed in the first 3 posts to the Constitution.

 

[Provolution]

I t would be interesting if only one judge would be replaced every second term, like real life. This would make every second election a highly strategic one, and make the judiciary more long term.

 

[LightFang]

I'm with Perf completely, go with the staggering at first.

 

[Aramazd]

All right, I'll stagger it. Give me a few minutes.

 

[The Yankee]

Let's keep Section 5. It's gamey, but it has to be done. Unless we can wait until there may be a persuasion or a change in the court. The only other choice would have to be some kind of convention amongst the Parliament to sort out the matter once and for all, if possible. That convention would have to have different rules than the Parliament, since a straight-up vote is far too open to the whims of the ruling party. And yet, if we set up a committee, we would inevitably excuse tiny parties and independents. So, any other ideas that could be better than Section 5?

 

[Aramazd]

Let's keep Section 5. It's gamey, but it has to be done. Unless we can wait until there may be a persuasion or a change in the court. The only other choice would have to be some kind of convention amongst the Parliament to sort out the matter once and for all, if possible. That convention would have to have different rules than the Parliament, since a straight-up vote is far too open to the whims of the ruling party. And yet, if we set up a committee, we would inevitably excuse tiny parties and independents. So, any other ideas that could be better than Section 5?

I'm not sure what you mean, if you'll explain I'll change it. Get back to me so I can put it up for a vote.

 

[The Yankee]

Well, if we were to continue on that line, which I'm not sure I'd buy, we'd hold a convention to decide that constitutional question. That convention could consist of three members from each of the "major" parties (I believe we've unofficially declared which parties were "majors") to debate and vote on the issue. The problem, in game and in parliamentary terms, would be who it would exclude, those that don't make up a major party or decide to be independent.

'Tis merely a thought if we were absolutely deadlocked. Given that I can't come up with a real viable alternative, I'll support Section 5 as it is, with GM's eventually deciding the issue if for some reason the 3 Court members cannot decide. Since we don't have the luxury of being able to wait until a new Court can maybe scrape together two votes one way or another.

It's gamey, it makes for an ultra court, but it's the best way out of it for our purposes.

 

[Aramazd]

Well, if we were to continue on that line, which I'm not sure I'd buy, we'd hold a convention to decide that constitutional question. That convention could consist of three members from each of the "major" parties (I believe we've unofficially declared which parties were "majors") to debate and vote on the issue. The problem, in game and in parliamentary terms, would be who it would exclude, those that don't make up a major party or decide to be independent.

'Tis merely a thought if we were absolutely deadlocked. Given that I can't come up with a real viable alternative, I'll support Section 5 as it is, with GM's eventually deciding the issue if for some reason the 3 Court members cannot decide. Since we don't have the luxury of being able to wait until a new Court can maybe scrape together two votes one way or another.

It's gamey, it makes for an ultra court, but it's the best way out of it for our purposes.

The thing is we have already had a convention and that didn't help to much, and given no viable alternatives I don't see a problem with Section 5

 

[Aramazd]

Well, if we were to continue on that line, which I'm not sure I'd buy, we'd hold a convention to decide that constitutional question. That convention could consist of three members from each of the "major" parties (I believe we've unofficially declared which parties were "majors") to debate and vote on the issue. The problem, in game and in parliamentary terms, would be who it would exclude, those that don't make up a major party or decide to be independent.

'Tis merely a thought if we were absolutely deadlocked. Given that I can't come up with a real viable alternative, I'll support Section 5 as it is, with GM's eventually deciding the issue if for some reason the 3 Court members cannot decide. Since we don't have the luxury of being able to wait until a new Court can maybe scrape together two votes one way or another.

It's gamey, it makes for an ultra court, but it's the best way out of it for our purposes.

The thing is we have already had a convention and that didn't help too much, and given no viable alternatives I don't see a problem with Section 5

 

[Aramazd]

I'll start a voting thread after I eat, unless there are any objections.
Decided to hold the vote for a day.

 

[The Yankee]

Right, which is why I'm supporting Section 5 after my brain fart. I say let's continue. Unless someone else pops in.