Term 1 - Election for Judge Advocate of the Court

[Alphawolf]

Please choose from the following options for Judge Advocate of the Court:

Donsig
Mhcarver
Abstain

This poll is open for three days.
Link to the Nomination Thread

Should they choose to make them, their platforms will go below:

Mhcarver's Platform

I’ll be brief here, I am running because I feel that I have done a good job as a judicial official in the past and with a new demo game, comes new questions, new conflicts, and a new dynamic, as an experienced official I at least have some idea how my rulings can affect the nation and if elected I will not issue a ruling that I feel will be detrimental to the game unless it there is no way around it, in which case I would immediately begin lobbying for a change in the law. I believe that In the past I have been fair and done good work as a court official, so vote mharver!

Donsig’s Platform:

As can be surmised from the answer above, I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to interpreting our constitution and laws. I believe justices must be limited to what is written and cannot delve into the world of what was intended to be written. If the founding fathers meant to say turn right but actually wrote turn left then we are bound to turn left until the constitution or law is legally changed to say turn right.

I do also believe justices should look at the constitution as a whole when interpreting it. If doing so highlights a conflict within the constitution then it is proper for the judiciary to explore what was intended when writing the document. For example if one clause says turn right and another says turn left then it is appropriate to decide which way to turn based on intent of the framers.

As for public investigations or citizen complaints or whatever they are called nowadays, I would work hard to resolve any such issues before they reached a trial stage. As Judge Advocate (read prosecutor) I do not think that every complaint filed must be brought to trial. I would certainly guard the people's interests jealously but if I felt a complaint had no merit I would not hesitate to say so.

-the Wolf

 

[The Condor]

Neither cuz they both sound weird.

 

[vikingruler]

Mhcarver has done a wonderful job as a court official every time he holds office. He definitley deserves a chance to show off his skills in this DG.
VOTE Mhcarver!!!

 

[mhcarver]

does anyone have any question? if I'm going to lose in a landslide i'd at least like to be able to debate my opponent in one way or another

 

[UnitQ]

I would like to see a platform. I would like to know what are you going to do in offiece.

 

[mhcarver]

I’ll be brief here, I am running because I feel that I have done a good job as a judicial official in the past and with a new demo game, comes new questions, new conflicts, and a new dynamic, as an experienced official I at least have some idea how my rulings can affect the nation and if elected I will not issue a ruling that I feel will be detrimental to the game unless it there is no way around it, in which case I would immediately begin lobbying for a change in the law. I believe that In the past I have been fair and done good work as a court official, so vote mharver!

1.and now question to myself and my opponent: how much say do you think the people should have in establishing the court procedure?
I believe that the court should be able to establish it's own procdures at the beggining of every term but it must seek approval from the people if it wants to alter them mid-term.

 

[UnitQ]

sounds good to me

 

[Cyc]

Condor, you couldn't be more wrong. Both of these candidates have long histories in the Civ3 DGs, and I can personally vouch for both of them. Just don't lend donsig any money.... Just kidding.

Both candidates are excellent Jurors and have vast knowledge of the Judicial system. I would be honored to vote for both.

 

[RoboPig]

Condor, you couldn't be more wrong. Both of these candidates have long histories in the Civ3 DGs, and I can personally vouch for both of them. Just don't lend donsig any money.... Just kidding.

Both candidates are excellent Jurors and have vast knowledge of the Judicial system. I would be honored to vote for both.

ignore condor, he'll do anything to get his post count up

 

[Alphawolf]

The first post has been updated with a platform.

-the Wolf

 

[donsig]

1.and now question to myself and my opponent: how much say do you think the people should have in establishing the court procedure?
I believe that the court should be able to establish it's own procdures at the beggining of every term but it must seek approval from the people if it wants to alter them mid-term.

I think that ultimately the people should have the final say in court procedures as in every other aspect of our democracy. After all, if we don't abide by the people's wishes we're not a democracy. How the people have their say is also up to them and I hope this would be spelled out in our constitution and laws. If the constitution says the chief justice sets court procedures then that's all there is to it. The people still have their say come election time. Unless there is a constitutonal or lower law requiring popular approval of procedures (or changes to procedures) then any such approval is voluntary.

Now for my platform:

As can be surmised from the answer above, I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to interpreting our constitution and laws. I believe justices must be limited to what is written and cannot delve into the world of what was intended to be written. If the founding fathers meant to say turn right but actually wrote turn left then we are bound to turn left until the constitution or law is legally changed to say turn right.

I do also believe justices should look at the constitution as a whole when interpreting it. If doing so highlights a conflict within the constitution then it is proper for the judiciary to explore what was intended when writing the document. For example if one clause says turn right and another says turn left then it is appropriate to decide which way to turn based on intent of the framers.

As for public investigations or citizen complaints or whatever they are called nowadays, I would work hard to resolve any such issues before they reached a trial stage. As Judge Advocate (read prosecutor) I do not think that every complaint filed must be brought to trial. I would certainly guard the people's interests jealously but if I felt a complaint had no merit I would not hesitate to say so.

 

[Alphawolf]

You plarform has been included donsig.

-the Wolf

 

[Black_Hole]

Sorry, both candidates were excellent choices, so I abstained

 

[Aythanaeus]

Yes they certainly seem to be extremely qualified and respectable people... I must sadly abstain!

 

[Cyc]

Ok, I still haven't voted in this election. A couple of quick questions. Let's see who answers and what they say.

1. What's the difference between "Innocent until proven Guilty " and "Innocent unless proven Guilty" and how will that difference affect your Court?

2. In your Court, to what extent does the authority of our Moderators permeate the Law of the Land? What are their boundries and what are yours?

 

[ravensfire]

1. What's the difference between "Innocent until proven Guilty " and "Innocent unless proven Guilty" and how will that difference affect your Court?

I was wondering when you would ask that question ...

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

I was wondering when you would ask that question ...

-- Ravensfire

I was really expecting a comment from you on that, Ravensfire. I was hoping for more, actually.

I needed to ask a question of the candidates and that question (and your future comment) was the first to pop into my head.

So it forced me to come up with a second question and that required a some thought. So thanks for the help!

 

[Question Mark]

I voted Mhcarver. Donsig's "strict constructionism" seems a bit too rigid. The letter of the law is very important, but one should consider the spirit of the law and the consequenses of a judgement as well. I was (and is) unsure though. Mhcarver might care too little for what is written in the law.

 

[BCLG100]

Mhcarver looks to be making a bit of a comeback, though i agree with donsig, it is not upto the judiciary to be leniant with the law, they are there to uphold it, if we want the law more leniant the citizens must change it.

 

[mhcarver]

1. What's the difference between "Innocent until proven Guilty " and "Innocent unless proven Guilty" and how will that difference affect your Court?

in my upbringing those two have meant the same thing, given the context in which innocent until proven guilty was often used, if you're going to get technical then until proven guilty means that their is a certain assumption of guilt. A judge advocate must have an assumption of guilt if he/she decides to prosecute someone, if they are prosecuting(note the difference from investigating) then they must believe that the person they are attempting to convict is guilty.

2. In your Court, to what extent does the authority of our Moderators permeate the Law of the Land? What are their boundries and what are yours?

in my mind a moderators boundaries are that they should keep order in the forums and veto any law that contradicts the forum rules, that should be their boundary, that being said moderators have in the past interfered with court business, which while I feel is beyond their boundaries I do not have the power to stop