T2-JR10 Public Discussion Thread

[ravensfire]

Cyc has requested the following Judicial Review:

I'd like to put a halt to striking down of our law CoS J.1.d with a JR. The Judicial Dept. is claiming they can do this in accordance with Article F of the Constitution.

The Laws for which this review is conducted are:

 Article F.  Judicial Branch
            The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice
            and two Associate Justices. These three justices are 
            tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting 
            laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed 
            by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional 
            responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the 
            Judicial Branch.

Also relevant to this discussion is Section D of the Code of Laws and Section M of the Code of Standards.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

 

[Cyc]

As stated in T2 – JR4, this Court intends to strike a Law from our books,

Therefore, Section J.1.d of the Code of Standards is stricken from the laws of Fanatica.

The reasoning for this statement:

The need for this review came in part from multiple candidates being elected simultaneously to other positions by receiving the most votes for that election. The law stipulates that only the person with the most votes is the winner. (Section F.5 of the CoL). This puts those citizens clearly in conflict with Article H of the Constitution. It is Section J.1.d of the CoS which allows this conflict to happen and encourages electoral confusion. It allows citizens to run for multiple offices simultaneously and does not provide a mechanism to relieve this conflict within the election process.

This JR10 is not concerned with the ruling involved in JR4 (above). This Judicial Review is about the Justice Department altering the Laws of Fanatica with a Judicial Review. This is the second time ravensfire has attempted to do this, and these actions must be stopped. The Justice Department is not permitted to alter our Three Books in any way, shape, or form. The may only perform the duties prescribed for them by Law, as stated in Article F of the Constitution. Associate Justice donsig confirmed the sentiment of the JR by stating the following:

No, the judiciary found section J.1.d of the CoS to conflict with article H of the constitution.

And also:

The judiciary did not strike down Section J.1.d of the CoS for convenience. It was stricken because it conflicts with article H of the constitution. The point I was trying to make about Congress getting off its lazy duff is that if it so chooses Congress can amend article H of the constitution and also reinstate J.1.d of the CoS afterwards. What the Congress chooses to do or not do from this point on will not affect the legality of the ruling just made. The striking of J.1.d is authorized by article F of the constitution.

Section J.1.d does not have to be reinstated because this Court does not have the right to disallow it or strike it from our Laws. Also J.1.d isn’t even conflicting of Article H, but that’s beside the point.

Even though we could not get a responsible clarification of this issue from Chief Justice ravensfire, his Court’s intentions were further clarified by Associate Justice donsig’s posting in the ”Needed Things” thread requesting deletion of Section J.1.d from the Three Books.

Please edit our Three Books to strike out section J.1.d of the CoS per the recent majority opinion of the Judiciary.

Section J.1.d of the CoS is in this post.
Because of the intent of this Court to alter the legislation of the Three Books without following due process, they are breaking the Law. Not only are they going outside their duties assigned in Article F of the Constitution, they are defying Section N.1 of the CoS:

N. Amending the Code of Standards
1. Polls to amend the Code of Standards shall be posted
by the Judiciary upon successful completion of a Judicial
Review.

Section M.1.c.4 of the CoS:

4. All Judicial Reviews are part of COUNTRY_NAME’s body
of Law, and may be used for future decisions unless
overridden by future Laws.

and Article E, paraphrased below:

The Congress will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

The first law states that the only way to amend the CoS is through polling Congress after a Judicial Review of the proposed Law is successfully completed. The second Law states that rulings of a Judicial Review become pert of the body of the Fanatican Law, aka the Judicial Log, they can only be used in future decisions unless overridden by future Laws. The last Law directly states that new laws are the responsibility of the Congress (citizenry), which would also include, indirectly, the deletion of existing Laws, as deleting Laws would change the nature of the remaining Laws.

Therefore, not only does Article F of the Constitution NOT support this Court’s right to strike Section J.1.d of the CoS from the Laws of Fanatica, this action is in direct contradiction of several other laws. I call for you to stop this action.

 

[zorven]

I believe that the intention has always been for the court to be able to strike laws that conflict with other laws of the same or higher level. I believe this is a basic function of the Court. However, the Court, like any other governement department or citizen, must follow the laws as they are written. Article F of the Constitution states that the Court is tasked with upholding the Constitution and supporting laws. However, it continues this statement with the phrase "as prescribed by law". Thus, we must look to the CoL and CoS to determine how the Court is able to uphold the Constitution and supporting laws. The only relevent text in the supporting laws is CoL D.2.c:

"Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards."

As you can see, this law limits Judicial Reviews to only be able to interpret and clarify existing laws. There is no mention made of the Court's ability to declare laws void or sticken. However, CoS M.1.c.4 states that Judicial Reviews become part of our body of law. It is within the Court's jurisdiction, as outlined in CoL D.2.c, to declare a law in conflict with another law on the same or higher level, and thus for it to be unenforcable due to that conflict. This decision would stand in our body of law until Congress acts to change the laws or a later Court decision reverses the decision that declared a law unenforcable.


note: I use the term "law" in a generic manner to refer to any section within our 3 Books or Judicial Logs.

 

[Cyc]

zorven, all good intentions aside, you are right (I believe...there has been a lot of double talk in this game). All government bodies must follow the rules laid out by the Three Books, more so even than the Citizens. We can find it in our hearts to be lenient in a situation dealing with a Citizen, but when it comes to Government entities, especially the Judicial Branch, especially one lead by a driving factor in the writing of those Laws, a line has to be drawn.

As you say the Law does not permit the Judicial Branch to declare Laws void or stricken. I wouldn't really use your word unenforcable, as the Law existing in our Three Books is still enforcable. They can state that the Law, in the eyes of this Court is contradictory to a higher Law and therefore ignore it. But that does not mean the Law is unenforcable, especially to a later Court, which would just have to mention it in a JR to be enforcable (unless the proper procedure was followed to amend the Constitution or supporting Book to have it removed or altered).

I'm glad the President can see the legality of my point of view. I certainly hope this Court can.

 

[donsig]

Does Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards mean the judiciary cannot find an existing law or standard to be in conflict with another existing law or standard or the constitution itself?

 

[Cyc]

It took you two days to ask a question that answers itself, donsig? I wonder how long this Court can stretch out the ruling period on this JR.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc
It took you two days to ask a question that answers itself, donsig? I wonder how long this Court can stretch out the ruling period on this JR.

Cyc,

Perhaps you should consider the question of does every person have full-time internet access.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

ravensfire, I know when donsig is signed on, just as I know when you are signed on. This isn't a matter of not being able to make it to the forums. This is a matter of waiting two days to post a question that has no bearing on the issue, so that the court is not pressed to make official decisions in a timely manner.

It's already the 16th of the month, you've made one ruling and that one was illegal. Perhaps you should consider something other than rolling your eyes.

 

[donsig]

What was the answer to my first questin, Cyc? A simple *yes* or *no* would be clearer.

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by donsig
Does Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards mean the judiciary cannot find an existing law or standard to be in conflict with another existing law or standard or the constitution itself?

Clarify can be used as a basis to say that one function of the judiciary is to identify when one law conflicts with another law. It does not give the power to eliminate (strike) a law. Nor does such a clarification itself become law, however by "becoming part of the body of law" it does make such a clarification subject to further review.

 

[ravensfire]

Public discussion on this Judicial Review has ended.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica