Term 1 - Judicial Branch - Conseil Constitutionnel

[Cyc]

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

The Conseil Constitutionnel was created by the Constitution of the People of Fanatica. For all intents and purposes it shall be known as the Judiciary. Article F of the Constitution states the initial obligations of the members of the Judiciary as tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law.

In democratic societies, Justice, the guardian of individual liberties and the rule of law, ensures the application of the law and guarantees the respect of the rights of all. It is to Justice, which falls the duty of settling conflicts by establishing the law, when the parties before it fail to settle their differences on their own.

Regulations governing the procedure to be followed before the Judiciary in Judicial Reviews can be found in CoL Section D and CoS Section M.

Regulations governing the procedure to be followed before the Judiciary in Citizen Complaints can be found in CoS Section L.

Regulations governing the procedure to be followed before the Judiciary in assistance with Absenteeism can be found in CoS Section K.

If you have any questions not covered by the above Sections of the Three Books, please feel free to post them below and this court will be obliged to assist you in an expedient manner.
__________________________________________________

Chief Justice – Cyc
Associate Justice – Bootstoots
Associate Justice – Peri

Term 1 Census – 38

All decisions made by this court in regards to the Constitutionality of any issues presented before it will be posted in the Judicial Log on the Main Page of these Civ3 Demogame forums.

As soon as our Constitution and supporting books have been completed, a link will be posted here that will take you to them. These will be , The Three Books, which will guide our nation in legal matters.

 

[Cyc]

Request for Judicial Review - Term1 - DGIVJR9

I request a Judicial Review on the recent Special Session conducted by the President. I wish the Judiciary to determine if the correct process was followed. The specific law involved in CoS Section C.2.

I do not want to make this a CC - this is a new ruleset with new processes. I would like a determination if the process was followed correctly, and if not, where the discrepencies were.

-- Ravensfire
________________________________________________

Request for Judicial Review - Term 1 - DGIVJR10

Moderator eyrei, as a citizen, has requested a Judicial review. He has included his question within his request, stated below:

I would like to request a judicial review on whether the FA department has the authority to give the instruction that the turn chat should be stopped if we make a contact, when no poll has been posted on the matter.

As for the Law in question, eyrei has chosen CoS Section F.9, which is a Standard. In accepting this Request for a Judicial Review, this Court will be setting precedent for the rest of the game (DGIV), in that legislation from the CoS will be accepted pertinent and allowable for Judicial Reviews. Not only for Requests of Judicial Reviews, but in Rulings and Decisions in Judicial Reviews.

Hence, eyrei's Request - "In light of CoS Section F.9, does the Foreign Affairs Department have the authority to give Instruction to the DP to stop the Turn Chat when new contact is made, when no poll has been posted on the matter?" has been accepted.
_____________________________________________

Request for Judicial Review - Term 1 - DGIVJR11



Request for Judicial Review - Term 1 - DGIVJR12

Zorven has requested a Judicial Review. It is posted below:

I hereby request a review to clarify CoL section C.1.d. Specifically, does the Senate have to post instructions in the Turn Chat thread that the cash request has been approved?

 d.  The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and vote 
        on all cash requests in a Cash Request poll. 
      1.  These requests should be made in the Senate thread, 
          or another designated thread indicated in the first 
          post of the Senate thread.
      2.  Each request should be considered individually 
          unless the requestor specified otherwise.
      3.  Each request should be voted on seperately.
      4.  Should more requests be approved than funds 
          available, requests shall be conducted in the order 
          determined by the Designated Player.

_____________________________________________




_____________________________________________
LINK TO THE JUDICIAL LOG

 

[Cyc]

There are no Citizens Complaints at this time.

 

[Cyc]

Resrved

 

[donsig]

I would like to ask our judiciary to make a ruling on the validity of the special election for chief justice.

I maintain that the election was illegal. I am not sure if I should begin to present the case here or not. I await further instructions from the judiciary as to how to proceed.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by donsig
I would like to ask our judiciary to make a ruling on the validity of the special election for chief justice.

I maintain that the election was illegal. I am not sure if I should begin to present the case here or not. I await further instructions from the judiciary as to how to proceed.

CoL Section E.2.C states the Judicial Members shall:

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


CoS Section X.1 states:

1. Judicial Review of an Existing Law
I. Request
A. Any citizen may request a Judicial Review by posting the request in
the Judicial Thread or via PM to any Justice.
1. The request should contain the question and the specific law involved.
2. If the request sent via PM, the citizen should remain anonymous unless
they choose otherwise.
B. The Chief Justice shall post a notice in the Judicial Thread that a Judicial
Request has been filed. This post should contain a summary of the Request.


To date, these are the guidelines for Judicial Review. I have noted your request for a Judicial Review, but your request does not fulfill the actual requirements of an official request (Please see CoS X.1.A.1 above). If you could complete your request by stating th specific law involved, we can move forward with this.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc


To date, these are the guidelines for Judicial Review. I have noted your request for a Judicial Review, but your request does not fulfill the actual requirements of an official request (Please see CoS X.1.A.1 above). If you could complete your request by stating th specific law involved, we can move forward with this.

Well, Cyc, it is a complicated matter. For one thing it is not clear what laws are in effect now and what laws were in effect at the time of the election in question. Not knowing exactly what was enacted and when makes it difficult to specify which law was not followed. It seems to me that the only thing in effect when this term started was part of the constitution. It could even be argued that since the whole process of creating our three books is not finished we do no have any laws yet!

The best interpretation I can give of what happened is that term one started and we did not have a CJ due to the tied election. Thus the office was vacant and according to article G of the constitution should have been filled by an appointment. It is upon this view that I requested the judicial review. I hesitate even now to state this as it seems unfair since this will undoubtedly be debated starting now. I have not been able to prepare a full blown case yet (as there are legitimate questions about what laws are or were in effect) yet it seems as though I'm being asked to present the case already.

But, in an effort to resolve this matter quickly, I will state that I believe the special election was in violation of article G of the constitution. I do reserve the right to cite other legal violations regarding this election should it prove that parts of the CoL and/or CoS were in effect at the time.

 

[Bootstoots]

-edited out-

 

[ravensfire]

Assuming we have a valid request for a JR, let's create the review thread and move the discussion there.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

To both Associate Justices:

Please refrain from discussing this matter with donsig in an open format. We need to follow procedure here, and asking the citizen who requested the review for proposals of resolution to this matter in this thread violates our guidelines.

The Judiciary is moving forward with donsig's request and procedure will be followed. If either of the Associate Justices have any questions about Judicial Review procedure, I suggest you read the above mentioned legislation.

As donsig has supplied the needed information to fulfill his official request for Judicial Review, I will now begin work on posting his request in the second post of this thread that is reserved for Judicial Reviews. Consider this request officially accepted.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc
To both Associate Justices:

Please refrain from discussing this matter with donsig in an open format. We need to follow procedure here, and asking the citizen who requested the review for proposals of resolution to this matter in this thread violates our guidelines.

The Judiciary is moving forward with donsig's request and procedure will be followed. If either of the Associate Justices have any questions about Judicial Review procedure, I suggest you read the above mentioned legislation.

As donsig has supplied the needed information to fulfill his official request for Judicial Review, I will now begin work on posting his request in the second post of this thread that is reserved for Judicial Reviews. Consider this request officially accepted.

Excellent! Please post the discussion thread so we may begin seeking citizen input and asking our own questions.

-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice

 

[donsig]

OK, post number two is updated. Is the next step to open a discussion thread in the citizen's forum?

EDIT: WOW that was fast Cyc!

 

[jorge_roberto]

I think all poll must have an Abstain and a Null (I don't know if this is the best term in english) option.

ABSTAIN means you agree with all options. Any result will be OK.

NULL means you disagree with all options or want another option to be included. So, you will agree with any result of the poll. If, NULL "wins", the poll is invalid.

How can we do this?

 

[Cyc]

I see your point, jorge_roberto, I believe historically the poll systems in our Demogames have used ABSTAIN for both options. By choosing ABSTAIN and then writing in your personal alternative, you are in essence saying you do not agree with the listed options and would rather do something else. To me, this course of action covers a "NULL" option.

I would suggest if you feel strongly about changing the poll system's structure, that you start a discussion thread in the citizen's sub forum. If you can gather enough support for your idea, the next step would be to cast a poll and try to achieve a majority opinion from the citizens.

These would be your first steps, as the Judiciary is powerless in creating new laws. This power lies with the People.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Dear Judicial Branch members.

I'd like your verdict on this case.
2 laws have been ratified. They contradict eachother on the topic of "refusal polls; who posts them?".
Col H2a1 and Cos F3ii

H. Vacant Positions
  1. Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election shall 
     be filled via appointment by the President. 
    a. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours of the 
       appointment. 
       
  2. Deputies
    a. Each elected office in the Executive and Legislative branch 
       shall have a Deputy. This Deputy is appointed by the office 
       holder.
      1. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours of the 
         appointment. 
    b. No elected official may be appointed a Deputy.
    c. A citizen may only be appointed to one Deputy position.
  3. Leader positions that become vacant mid-term shall be filled by 
     appointing the deputy for that position as Leader.
    a. A mid-term vacancy in the Judiciary shall be filled by a 
       triumvirate vote between the President and the other two 
       Justices determining and approving the replacement.
      1. Any citizen may request a refusal poll within 24 hours of 
         the appointement.

and

  3.  Refusal Polls
    i.  Any citizen may request a refusal poll to be posted within 24 hours
        of any citizen being appointed to an elected office.
    ii.  The person who appointed the citizen to the office must create a
         poll within 24 hours of the refusal request.
      a.  Failure to post the poll shall result in the appoinment nullified
      b.  Poll shall only contain Yes, No and Abstain options.
      c.  Poll shall run for 48 hours.
      d.  Header and body of poll should state that this is a refusal poll
          and the position in question.
      e.  Should there fail to be a majority of votes in support of the 
          appointment, the appointment is immediately nullified upon the 
          poll closing.
    iii.  If the appointment is nullified, the person making the appointment
          must appoint a different citizent to the office.

 

[Cyc]

Dear Mr. President. Because all of the roadblocks set up during the discussions for rulemaking prior to the begining of the game, along with all the side issues that needed to be hashed out before progress could be made, we ran out of time to do a lot of thing in a coherent manner as for as getting Legislation ratified. As you point out, there are two pieces of Legislation, one in the CoL and one in the CoS, that touch on the refusal poll issue. It is not uncommon to have an issue or topic span 2 or all of the three books.

As far as being contradictory, I must say that upon rereading the two pieces of legislature, they do not contradict each other. In fact the work in a complementary fashion with each other. The word MAY in each piece allows the process to take place either way.

Therefore I don't see a problem. If a citizen wants to do it one way they can. If a citizen wants to do it the other way, the Leader had better respond within the required time parameters.

Can you see this point of view, Mr. President?

 

[DaveShack]

Although not a member of the judiciary, I agree fully with Cyc's interpretation of these two articles on refusal polls. The CoL section merely says a citizen may post a refusal poll. The CoS section says that a citizen may request a refusal poll, and if such a poll is requested, the official in question must post it.

 

[donsig]

I believe our president was requesting a JUDICIAL REVIEW of the legislation in question. Isn't there some sort of PROCEDURE to be followed in such a case?

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by donsig
I believe our president was requesting a JUDICIAL REVIEW of the legislation in question. Isn't there some sort of PROCEDURE to be followed in such a case?

I qualified my post as unofficial. It will give our president a chance to withdraw his request if this explanation is sufficient.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by donsig
I believe our president was requesting a JUDICIAL REVIEW of the legislation in question. Isn't there some sort of PROCEDURE to be followed in such a case?

I'm sorry donsig, but after reviewing the post by the President, I see no request for a Judicial Review. He merely asked for a verdict to a case. I know there is no "case" in particular, so I assumed the President was asking for a "verdict" in a jovial manner. If in deed the President does wish a Judicial Review he may ask for one.