donsig
Low level intermediary
I see. We may not know how to interpret the meaning of the word vacant but we do know how to interpret the meaning of the word verdict.
Term 1 - Judicial Branch - Conseil Constitutionnel
- Thread starter Cyc
- Start date
I see. We may not know how to interpret the meaning of the word vacant but we do know how to interpret the meaning of the word verdict.
Dear Judiciaries, Peri, VP.
There was talk of a refusal poll for Donsig's appointment as VP. I wanted to be exactly sure who had to take action, eg post the poll. DZ, the requestor, was convinced he wasn't allowed to post a poll, I was convinced he was. Then Raven pointed out an anomaly in 2 ratified laws and just wanted to edit 1 of them. I consider that a change of the constitution, which should not be performed through a one-man-action.
Therefore I requested to take a look at the 2 sections, to decide whether they are indeed contradictory and to determine whether they can be changed this easily.
There was talk of a refusal poll for Donsig's appointment as VP. I wanted to be exactly sure who had to take action, eg post the poll. DZ, the requestor, was convinced he wasn't allowed to post a poll, I was convinced he was. Then Raven pointed out an anomaly in 2 ratified laws and just wanted to edit 1 of them. I consider that a change of the constitution, which should not be performed through a one-man-action.
Therefore I requested to take a look at the 2 sections, to decide whether they are indeed contradictory and to determine whether they can be changed this easily.
jorge_roberto
Warlord
Thank you, Cyc
I just wanted to know the procedure to change this. I will start a discussion thread to know our people's feedback about this point.
Jorge
Donovan Zoi
The Return
Rik, you still haven't said the magic words....Judicial Review. So your question may still remain unanswered.
Cyc, how about granting our President a little leeway until we are all familiar with the process?
Also, how are we doing on the Judicial Review that donsig requested? Was there a meeting in chat yesterday?
Cyc
Looking for the door...
DZ, I can certainly procedeed with a Judicial Review of the two existing laws. Although I have already stated my opinion on the matter, We can still reference the Laws involved for changing them.
As far as Judicial Review #1, I have posted in the JR thread in the Citizen's sub forum. I will repost here also.
First, I would like to thank DZ for his appraisal of the situation and his final determination that the Judiciary should remain as is.
Secondly, I would like to list the procedure for the Judiciarys posting of the opinions for the first Judicial Review for Demogame IV.
Because our communication system seems to have broken down, an alternative plan must be put into action. As for Ravensfires involvement in the JR Judicial discussion, he proposed an alternative plan of using a Judicial Chat Room/Message Center he has in Yahoo. Unfortunately, he says that because of work, he cannot access any kind of chat room through his proxy. This is understandable, but this leaves only forum posting for discussion of a decision. During the nighttime hour, Ravensfire is too busy with sports and other activities to commit to any kind of chat room time schedule. Bootstoots has finally read my PM to him about Arguments Over in which I ask him to reply with a chat room and a time he could attend. This was over an hour and a half ago, and I still have not gotten any kind of reply from him.
It seems I am dealing with a hostile bench, as the Associate Justices, who are normally online throughout the day and night, have found other things to occupy their time now that I have called Arguments Over. Ravensfire has posted a lengthy Analysis/Opinion (along with the information that DZ has asked for) in the Yahoo site, but that is all. In reading his opinion, it appears that he is resigning.
So, in light of all this, in accordance with Article F of the Constitution stated below:
The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.
I will now state the procedure the Judicial Department will use in posting its majority opinion (and minority opinion if needed). Each Justice will their opinion (with notes, if applicable) in the Term 1 Judicial thread, making clear their opinion on the issue at hand. I will then summarize the natural division (if necessary) of a Majority/Minority decision. If all Justices seem to agree, there will be no Minority decision. I will then post these opinions and summary decision(s) in the Judicial Log.
Unless there appears to be a major problem with the mechanics of this procedure, aid procedure will be standard operating procedure for the remainder of the Term, as having Joint discussions seems to be out of the question.
As far as Judicial Review #1, I have posted in the JR thread in the Citizen's sub forum. I will repost here also.
First, I would like to thank DZ for his appraisal of the situation and his final determination that the Judiciary should remain as is.
Secondly, I would like to list the procedure for the Judiciarys posting of the opinions for the first Judicial Review for Demogame IV.
Because our communication system seems to have broken down, an alternative plan must be put into action. As for Ravensfires involvement in the JR Judicial discussion, he proposed an alternative plan of using a Judicial Chat Room/Message Center he has in Yahoo. Unfortunately, he says that because of work, he cannot access any kind of chat room through his proxy. This is understandable, but this leaves only forum posting for discussion of a decision. During the nighttime hour, Ravensfire is too busy with sports and other activities to commit to any kind of chat room time schedule. Bootstoots has finally read my PM to him about Arguments Over in which I ask him to reply with a chat room and a time he could attend. This was over an hour and a half ago, and I still have not gotten any kind of reply from him.
It seems I am dealing with a hostile bench, as the Associate Justices, who are normally online throughout the day and night, have found other things to occupy their time now that I have called Arguments Over. Ravensfire has posted a lengthy Analysis/Opinion (along with the information that DZ has asked for) in the Yahoo site, but that is all. In reading his opinion, it appears that he is resigning.
So, in light of all this, in accordance with Article F of the Constitution stated below:
The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.
I will now state the procedure the Judicial Department will use in posting its majority opinion (and minority opinion if needed). Each Justice will their opinion (with notes, if applicable) in the Term 1 Judicial thread, making clear their opinion on the issue at hand. I will then summarize the natural division (if necessary) of a Majority/Minority decision. If all Justices seem to agree, there will be no Minority decision. I will then post these opinions and summary decision(s) in the Judicial Log.
Unless there appears to be a major problem with the mechanics of this procedure, aid procedure will be standard operating procedure for the remainder of the Term, as having Joint discussions seems to be out of the question.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
My, I actually have to get some work done, and chaos breaks out. Heaven forbid I have a deadline to deal with. Oh that's right, I do.
I'll try to respond to everything, and unfortunately that does mean putting more personal information into this that I prefer.
First, my priorities are quite clear: family, friends, self, job, entertainment. In case you're wondering, this is in the "entertainment" category.
During the past few weeks, I've been able to participate fairly actively during my work day due to the nature of the tasks I was performing. Basically, I have to run build (compile java code) - this takes about 15 minutes per compile. I'm able to post during that time without impact my work schedule. This week has brought a change to that, especially today and the rest of the week at a minimum.
Also in the past few week, my normal evening demands have been light due to the holiday season. I'm a volleyball player - and fairly competitive. To be exact - I play USAV club ball at the BB level. I run a club of two teams, am the captain for one and play middle hitter. I play 2 nights of leagues, and sometimes sub for more.
In short, I can get pretty busy outside of this. The expectation that I will be continually, instantly and reliably available is not even remotely realistic. As with others, demands upon my time vary drastically.
I am strongly against the "solution" that Cyc posted for this. Essentially, he's advocating a return to the process of old, one that I deliberately crafted the Judicial Review process to avoid. The CoS on Judicial review requires that that Judiciary meet privately to discuss our views on the review, and create a Majority and, optionally, a Minority opinion.
First, as Cyc has discovered, getting everyone available for a chat is difficult. What would he do with a person who had access only through work, and had IRC access blocked from work? This is a forum-based game - we need a forum based solution. I've proposed an option, and asked for any other ideas - no alternatives were proposed until now.
Second, we are tasked to work as a group and in private. Cyc's proposal violates both of those laws. I don't care how we do this, it just needs to be done right. It's not going to happen immediately, and it shouldn't Something like this will take some time - I doubt anyone has a problem with that.
The allegation that this is a "hostile" Judiciary towards him is unwarranted. It is true I don't particular like some of his actions of late, but I have, and always will have, respect for the position and institution of the Judiciary. I don't really care who is there, so long as they perform the duties and tasks assigned to them. Until this, I've been satisfied with what's happened thus far.
The Judiciary is an entity, a group. While the CJ has additional responsibilities and tasks, ultimately their vote is the same as each AJ - it takes 2 people, agreeing, to create an opinion. This approach is more of a dictatorship than anything else - it's not the way the Judiciary should function.
Should this process be used, I will immediately file a Judicial Review on this process, alleging specific violations of the process defined in the Code of Standards. I will also request that both Cyc and I recuse ourselves for that review.
Finally, I am distressed that information communicated privately as part of my analysis of the review, and not intended for public display, was used as part of Cyc's message. In part, Judicial integrity requires that the posts individual justices make, in private, must allowed to stay that way. I am the owner of the yahoo group the last three Judiciaries used in DG3 to discuss matters. After each term, I deleted all messages from that term. The only members of that group were active Judiciary members. When not a member, no messages were accessed by me.
In short, I have a major problem with the process Cyc has listed.
My apologies to all for the length,
-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice
I'll try to respond to everything, and unfortunately that does mean putting more personal information into this that I prefer.
First, my priorities are quite clear: family, friends, self, job, entertainment. In case you're wondering, this is in the "entertainment" category.
During the past few weeks, I've been able to participate fairly actively during my work day due to the nature of the tasks I was performing. Basically, I have to run build (compile java code) - this takes about 15 minutes per compile. I'm able to post during that time without impact my work schedule. This week has brought a change to that, especially today and the rest of the week at a minimum.
Also in the past few week, my normal evening demands have been light due to the holiday season. I'm a volleyball player - and fairly competitive. To be exact - I play USAV club ball at the BB level. I run a club of two teams, am the captain for one and play middle hitter. I play 2 nights of leagues, and sometimes sub for more.
In short, I can get pretty busy outside of this. The expectation that I will be continually, instantly and reliably available is not even remotely realistic. As with others, demands upon my time vary drastically.
I am strongly against the "solution" that Cyc posted for this. Essentially, he's advocating a return to the process of old, one that I deliberately crafted the Judicial Review process to avoid. The CoS on Judicial review requires that that Judiciary meet privately to discuss our views on the review, and create a Majority and, optionally, a Minority opinion.
First, as Cyc has discovered, getting everyone available for a chat is difficult. What would he do with a person who had access only through work, and had IRC access blocked from work? This is a forum-based game - we need a forum based solution. I've proposed an option, and asked for any other ideas - no alternatives were proposed until now.
Second, we are tasked to work as a group and in private. Cyc's proposal violates both of those laws. I don't care how we do this, it just needs to be done right. It's not going to happen immediately, and it shouldn't Something like this will take some time - I doubt anyone has a problem with that.
The allegation that this is a "hostile" Judiciary towards him is unwarranted. It is true I don't particular like some of his actions of late, but I have, and always will have, respect for the position and institution of the Judiciary. I don't really care who is there, so long as they perform the duties and tasks assigned to them. Until this, I've been satisfied with what's happened thus far.
The Judiciary is an entity, a group. While the CJ has additional responsibilities and tasks, ultimately their vote is the same as each AJ - it takes 2 people, agreeing, to create an opinion. This approach is more of a dictatorship than anything else - it's not the way the Judiciary should function.
Should this process be used, I will immediately file a Judicial Review on this process, alleging specific violations of the process defined in the Code of Standards. I will also request that both Cyc and I recuse ourselves for that review.
Finally, I am distressed that information communicated privately as part of my analysis of the review, and not intended for public display, was used as part of Cyc's message. In part, Judicial integrity requires that the posts individual justices make, in private, must allowed to stay that way. I am the owner of the yahoo group the last three Judiciaries used in DG3 to discuss matters. After each term, I deleted all messages from that term. The only members of that group were active Judiciary members. When not a member, no messages were accessed by me.
In short, I have a major problem with the process Cyc has listed.
My apologies to all for the length,
-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice
I must say that, citing the CoS, I also disapprove of the process Cyc has outlined. Article F of the consitution says that the Chief Justice shall organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. It does not, in any way, give the CJ the power to override rules in lower books. If there were no standard requiring that review be done privately with a posting of opinions by the CJ after it is conducted, I would be all in favor of Cyc's method of conducting review. I have posted review in the Yahoo group for this; the only person remaining to do so is our Chief Justice. I apologize for having a limited amount of time this past day to be very active in this role; hopefully this is only a momentary surge in RL activity (and subsequent lack of forum activity) for me. Cyc, I feel that you should be more patient on waiting for reply; it has been less than 24 hours since discussion was ended on the Judicial Review.
I will not tolerate disagreement within the Judiciary Branch to be expressed in these ways to the outside world. You are to function as a team; or at least you are to appear to do so.
I don't care how you are going to resolve this; but you will resolve this. You 3 have been elected and are "sentenced to eachother" whether you like it or not. You represent the judiciary branch and you speak to us non-judiciaries in 1 voice.
I am offering my help for a solution. I urge you to solve this yourselves (without any more negativity radiating to us), but if you can't, contact me by PM.
The President.
<edit>typo</edit>
I don't care how you are going to resolve this; but you will resolve this. You 3 have been elected and are "sentenced to eachother" whether you like it or not. You represent the judiciary branch and you speak to us non-judiciaries in 1 voice.
I am offering my help for a solution. I urge you to solve this yourselves (without any more negativity radiating to us), but if you can't, contact me by PM.
The President.
<edit>typo</edit>
Donovan Zoi
The Return
I second the President's demands for a timely solution to this matter.
Judging by the current situation, it would seem like parts of CoS Section X may be a bit of a pipedream. Has that much Judiciary discussion really taken place behind closed doors in the past?
I still prefer the method of each Justice determining on his own Judicial findings and posting them without the knowledge of the other Justices' decision. No corroboration necessary, just post what you feel and have the Chief Justice determine the results where grey areas exist.
However, I am not about to ask for a Judicial review for this when there is so much on your plate already. So the current process stands. I would ask that any Justice that is unable or unwilling to abide by CoS Section X.III to provide a timely resolution to this matter work on appointing a Pro Tem Justice immediately.
For reference here is CoS Section X.III(and IV):
Judging by the current situation, it would seem like parts of CoS Section X may be a bit of a pipedream. Has that much Judiciary discussion really taken place behind closed doors in the past?
I still prefer the method of each Justice determining on his own Judicial findings and posting them without the knowledge of the other Justices' decision. No corroboration necessary, just post what you feel and have the Chief Justice determine the results where grey areas exist.
However, I am not about to ask for a Judicial review for this when there is so much on your plate already. So the current process stands. I would ask that any Justice that is unable or unwilling to abide by CoS Section X.III to provide a timely resolution to this matter work on appointing a Pro Tem Justice immediately.
For reference here is CoS Section X.III(and IV):
Code:
III. Judicial Discussion
A. The Judiciary shall then meet privately to discuss review
B. The Judiciary shall produce a Majority opinion, and if needed, a
Minority opinion.
C. The Chief Justice shall post both opinions, including the signers
of each, in the Judicial Thread and the Judicial Log.
1. Each Justice should post a confirmatory message which may also
include an explanatory note. Any such note is not part of the official record.
D. All Judicial Reviews are part of COUNTRY_NAMEs body of Law, and may
be used for future decisions unless overridden by future Laws.
IV. General
A. All proceedings should go forth in an expedient manner.
B. All proceedings started under one Court shall continue with that Court
through the conclusion of that proceeding.
FortyJ
Deity
The current system will work and can work even in a forum only environment. However, it will take time to render these decisions.
I think that if we are to insist on private discussions amongst the judiciary, then we should create a private, closed sub-forum exclusively for the judiciary to conduct their deliberations. Otherwise, we must rely on their ability to meet via IRC or MSN Messenger or work out their opinions via e-mail or PM. Either way, we must be patient and wait for this process to work itself out.
If we opt to forego patience and insist on quick resolutions to these issues, then I fear we must return to a format in which each justice posts his or her opinion independently, or some variety of same.
For the record, and not to imply that my personal opinion should have any influence on this discussion, but I don't care how we resolve this. I just felt obligated to speak up and defend our court that seemingly hasn't had an opportunity to meet in private to discuss the case (as required by law) and yet we insist on immediate satisfaction.
I think that if we are to insist on private discussions amongst the judiciary, then we should create a private, closed sub-forum exclusively for the judiciary to conduct their deliberations. Otherwise, we must rely on their ability to meet via IRC or MSN Messenger or work out their opinions via e-mail or PM. Either way, we must be patient and wait for this process to work itself out.
If we opt to forego patience and insist on quick resolutions to these issues, then I fear we must return to a format in which each justice posts his or her opinion independently, or some variety of same.
For the record, and not to imply that my personal opinion should have any influence on this discussion, but I don't care how we resolve this. I just felt obligated to speak up and defend our court that seemingly hasn't had an opportunity to meet in private to discuss the case (as required by law) and yet we insist on immediate satisfaction.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
The two Associate Justices have prepared their Majority opinion, and are ready to transfer it from Ravensfire's forum to this one.In fact they have been ready for sometime now. I have instructed them to post their opinion along with the findings that you,DZ have asked for, but they have refused. I have told them I will not publish their opinion (they only have one). I will not sign their document because I so strongly disagree with its content. If they wish to present a document like that to the public, then let them do it. It would be much more appropriate if the signers of the document did this.
Once the Associate Justices post there Majority Opinion, then I can come in and post the Minority Opinion. I will then summarize our decision and post in the Judicial log.
Once the Associate Justices post there Majority Opinion, then I can come in and post the Minority Opinion. I will then summarize our decision and post in the Judicial log.
With all due respect to the chief justice, CoS X.III.C requires the CJ to post both opinions. Doing so does not imply agreement with the opinion that the CJ disagrees with. It is merely a method of ensuring stability in the process of rendering judgement. Failure to post the opinions according to the quoted standard would be grounds for a citizen complaint.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Trust me DaveShack, I am very aware of the Laws that guide our nation, as I am aware of the repercussions one might have to endure should he break those laws. That said, I have decided to post the Majority Opinion for the Associate Justices. As you say, doing so does not imply agreement with the opinion. It is merely a method of ensuring stability in the process of rendering judgement. I still feel unsure about this, as I feel that there is something deeply wrong when one man has to ask another to post his resignation for him. I also kind of get the feeling he is trying to make me look like the bad guy here. All that aside, I will now post their opinion, including the findings that ravensfire produced in accord with DZ's request. Let's get to those first.
Facts:12/15 Con Article F (Judiciary) Ratified
12/21 Con Article E (Legislature) Ratified
12/21 Con Article D (Executive) Ratified
12/21 Nomination Threads posted (at least some after D,E ratify)
12/22 Ravensfire comments in several that threads are for positionsthat do not exist. Changes were made to nomination threads toreflect correct positions.
12/27 Election Threads posted
12/28 CoL Election Ratification Poll posted
12/28 CoS Election Ratification Poll posted
12/31 Election Threads close
01/03 Special Election Thread opens
01/05 Special Election Thread closes
Next I will post the Majority Opinion, penned by ravensfire and agree to by Bootstoots.
[begin opinion]> Summary:> This review concerns the legality of the Judicial Elections held in Term 1, specifically the use of a special election to break a tie in the regular Chief Justice elections. In this special election, all citizens in the Chief Justice and the Associate Justice electionswere placed, along with any other citizen who wished to run for office. The previous, uncontested results of Bootstoots and Peri asAssociate> Justices where thrown out. As a result of this, Cyc was electedChief Justice, Bootstoots and Ravensfire were Associate Justices.
Complicating the matter, many parts of our law had not yet been ratified, and thus cannot be used for this review.
Analysis:> The end of the Chief Justice election resulted in a tie, meaning no person was elected to the office, rendering it vacant at the startof the term. Relevant sections of the Code of Laws had not yet been ratified, meaning the only law on point is Article G of the Constitution, in part: "All vacant elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term."No appointment mechanism had yet been created in law.
The ultimate authority for the Demogame resides in the Moderators,as such, their actions must be considered as "appointment". Yet their actions should not undo a previous, legal and uncontested action,the election of Bootstoots and Peri as Associate Justices. Therefore,the special election must be deemed legal with regards to the Chief Justice, and illegal with regards to the Associate Justices.
Therefore, we order that the appointment of Cyc to the position of Chief Justice to be UPHELD. We order that the appointment of Ravensfire to the position of Associate Justice be DENIED, and that he resign immediately. We futher order that immediate appointment of Peri to the position of Associate Justice be GRANTED. This will result in the Judiciary being made of: Cyc, Chief Justice; Bootstoots, Associate Justice; Peri, Associate Justice.
/s/ Cyc, Chief Justice
/s/ Bootstoots, Associate Justice
/s/ Ravensfire, Associate Justice>> [end opinion]
Comments?
-- Ravensfire
This looks good to me. I have no objections to it.
___________________________________________
The last line is Bootstoots' reply to ravensfire, accepting the opinion as his own. Although I am sorry to see such a highly qualified individual leave the bench, considring the situation at hand, it may be the best thing overall. Thank you Gentlemen for your opinion.
Facts:12/15 Con Article F (Judiciary) Ratified
12/21 Con Article E (Legislature) Ratified
12/21 Con Article D (Executive) Ratified
12/21 Nomination Threads posted (at least some after D,E ratify)
12/22 Ravensfire comments in several that threads are for positionsthat do not exist. Changes were made to nomination threads toreflect correct positions.
12/27 Election Threads posted
12/28 CoL Election Ratification Poll posted
12/28 CoS Election Ratification Poll posted
12/31 Election Threads close
01/03 Special Election Thread opens
01/05 Special Election Thread closes
Next I will post the Majority Opinion, penned by ravensfire and agree to by Bootstoots.
[begin opinion]> Summary:> This review concerns the legality of the Judicial Elections held in Term 1, specifically the use of a special election to break a tie in the regular Chief Justice elections. In this special election, all citizens in the Chief Justice and the Associate Justice electionswere placed, along with any other citizen who wished to run for office. The previous, uncontested results of Bootstoots and Peri asAssociate> Justices where thrown out. As a result of this, Cyc was electedChief Justice, Bootstoots and Ravensfire were Associate Justices.
Complicating the matter, many parts of our law had not yet been ratified, and thus cannot be used for this review.
Analysis:> The end of the Chief Justice election resulted in a tie, meaning no person was elected to the office, rendering it vacant at the startof the term. Relevant sections of the Code of Laws had not yet been ratified, meaning the only law on point is Article G of the Constitution, in part: "All vacant elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term."No appointment mechanism had yet been created in law.
The ultimate authority for the Demogame resides in the Moderators,as such, their actions must be considered as "appointment". Yet their actions should not undo a previous, legal and uncontested action,the election of Bootstoots and Peri as Associate Justices. Therefore,the special election must be deemed legal with regards to the Chief Justice, and illegal with regards to the Associate Justices.
Therefore, we order that the appointment of Cyc to the position of Chief Justice to be UPHELD. We order that the appointment of Ravensfire to the position of Associate Justice be DENIED, and that he resign immediately. We futher order that immediate appointment of Peri to the position of Associate Justice be GRANTED. This will result in the Judiciary being made of: Cyc, Chief Justice; Bootstoots, Associate Justice; Peri, Associate Justice.
/s/ Cyc, Chief Justice
/s/ Bootstoots, Associate Justice
/s/ Ravensfire, Associate Justice>> [end opinion]
Comments?
-- Ravensfire
This looks good to me. I have no objections to it.
___________________________________________
The last line is Bootstoots' reply to ravensfire, accepting the opinion as his own. Although I am sorry to see such a highly qualified individual leave the bench, considring the situation at hand, it may be the best thing overall. Thank you Gentlemen for your opinion.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
I have the Minority Opinion in this Judicial Review. My Associates have gone together on the Majority Opinion, but I could not in all conscience sign their document. I totally disagree with the content of their opinion and the findings that surfaced because of their research.
To start, I will state some of the findings that Moderator Donovan Zoi has asked for. As far as what pertinent legislation was ratified at the commencement of the first elections (12/27/03 2359GMT), only Articles F and G of the Constitution were. As far as what legislation was ratified at the commencement of the Special Election for the Chief Justice (1/3/04 1538GMT), there were CoL Section E (Judiciary), CoL Section X (Elections), CoS Section Y (Elections), as well as the aforementioned Articles. So in a way, regardless of the timing of either election, the Constitution supported the elections of the Judiciary with Article F specifically claiming there will be a Justice Department and Article G generally claiming all elected positions shall have a fixed term.
Article G wound up in its final form ~ All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All vacant elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.
after going through many twists and turns of debate and discussion. Some people demanded that the legislation be changed from of stating that elected officials would serve one-month terms, to its present form of also stating that vacant positions would be filled by appointment. All of this is very well documented in the Article G discussion thread and the first poll for Article G, which had no mention of appointments anywhere in the options, just in the debate posted below. donsig, who was totally against appointments, was the driving force behind getting appointments included in Article G, threatening to claim any appointment unconstitutional if they were not mentioned in it. Article Gs final form, by the way was meant to address any Leader position that became vacant mid Term. At that time, a replacement would be appointed for the remainder of the Term. Article G, in its new form would come into play when a Leader position was truly vacant, as in someone leaving the position or no one running for the position. Donsig is using play on words here claiming the Chief Justice position for Term 1 DG IV was vacant, when in fact there were two fully qualified individuals awaiting determination of the true victor. Thus the position was not vacant, but over-crowded. It was very plain to see at the time, as everyone knew the situation. Therefore Article G does not apply to this situation.
Another problem that arose at the time was the mess caused by the Election Office in posting inappropriate Nomination threads for Term 1 DG IV. Because they were all put up haphazardly, a rush to correct the situation, without following the legislation that was being written for the Elections, ensued to the dismay of anyone who was paying attention at the time. I was one of those people. The whole thing was a fiasco, and when the smoke cleared, the legislation covering the Judicial Department had been ratified. Therefore, because of the tie in the Chief Justice race, any new special election covering the Judicial Department would have to abide by the new legislation or be illegal. As time was of the essence, because elections had finished and Creation Day was right around the corner, a makeshift Nomination period was drawn up to allow donsig to self nominate as well as allow others to drop out of the race, if they so desired. All candidates for the Judicial Department were included in the election poll, just as the newly ratified Section Y of the Code of Standards stated. Therefore this poll was not illegal, but fully sanctified by Law. The first set of polls for the Judiciary were much more inappropriate, as were all of the Nomination threads.
In summary, we can see that Article G is totally inappropriate for the purpose that donsig wants to use it. Not only because it was meant to cover mid Term vacancies, but because there was no vacancy in the Chief Justice position. We can also pre-empt any further thought that the special election for the Chief Justice position was illegal, because it followed the newly ratified CoS code written specifically for it. Thank you for taking the time necessary to read this lengthy opinion.
To start, I will state some of the findings that Moderator Donovan Zoi has asked for. As far as what pertinent legislation was ratified at the commencement of the first elections (12/27/03 2359GMT), only Articles F and G of the Constitution were. As far as what legislation was ratified at the commencement of the Special Election for the Chief Justice (1/3/04 1538GMT), there were CoL Section E (Judiciary), CoL Section X (Elections), CoS Section Y (Elections), as well as the aforementioned Articles. So in a way, regardless of the timing of either election, the Constitution supported the elections of the Judiciary with Article F specifically claiming there will be a Justice Department and Article G generally claiming all elected positions shall have a fixed term.
Article G wound up in its final form ~ All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All vacant elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.
after going through many twists and turns of debate and discussion. Some people demanded that the legislation be changed from of stating that elected officials would serve one-month terms, to its present form of also stating that vacant positions would be filled by appointment. All of this is very well documented in the Article G discussion thread and the first poll for Article G, which had no mention of appointments anywhere in the options, just in the debate posted below. donsig, who was totally against appointments, was the driving force behind getting appointments included in Article G, threatening to claim any appointment unconstitutional if they were not mentioned in it. Article Gs final form, by the way was meant to address any Leader position that became vacant mid Term. At that time, a replacement would be appointed for the remainder of the Term. Article G, in its new form would come into play when a Leader position was truly vacant, as in someone leaving the position or no one running for the position. Donsig is using play on words here claiming the Chief Justice position for Term 1 DG IV was vacant, when in fact there were two fully qualified individuals awaiting determination of the true victor. Thus the position was not vacant, but over-crowded. It was very plain to see at the time, as everyone knew the situation. Therefore Article G does not apply to this situation.
Another problem that arose at the time was the mess caused by the Election Office in posting inappropriate Nomination threads for Term 1 DG IV. Because they were all put up haphazardly, a rush to correct the situation, without following the legislation that was being written for the Elections, ensued to the dismay of anyone who was paying attention at the time. I was one of those people. The whole thing was a fiasco, and when the smoke cleared, the legislation covering the Judicial Department had been ratified. Therefore, because of the tie in the Chief Justice race, any new special election covering the Judicial Department would have to abide by the new legislation or be illegal. As time was of the essence, because elections had finished and Creation Day was right around the corner, a makeshift Nomination period was drawn up to allow donsig to self nominate as well as allow others to drop out of the race, if they so desired. All candidates for the Judicial Department were included in the election poll, just as the newly ratified Section Y of the Code of Standards stated. Therefore this poll was not illegal, but fully sanctified by Law. The first set of polls for the Judiciary were much more inappropriate, as were all of the Nomination threads.
In summary, we can see that Article G is totally inappropriate for the purpose that donsig wants to use it. Not only because it was meant to cover mid Term vacancies, but because there was no vacancy in the Chief Justice position. We can also pre-empt any further thought that the special election for the Chief Justice position was illegal, because it followed the newly ratified CoS code written specifically for it. Thank you for taking the time necessary to read this lengthy opinion.
Donovan Zoi
The Return
As unfortunate as this may seem, it seems like the letter of the law was followed here. I don't have time to write a lenghty response here, but can say that I will not contest this decision. When I made my moderator ruling, I did not have a full grasp of alll the laws at hand but a decision had to made. Now that the majority opinion has been posted, I will allow it to override my previous orders.
At this time, I will wait for the confirmatory note from both Associate Justices and will return to this courtroom in about 10 hours to get an update on the proceedings.
Thank you all for your promptness in this matter.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
As my final act as Associate Justice, I agree with the majority opinion posted above. 'Course, I wrote it, so I'd better agree with it!
I started my analysis with an open mind, examining what was there, not what I wanted to be there. If anything, I was more surprised than anyone at the conclusion I came to. It was, however, the only conclusion I could see. Overturning a valid election for the sake of expedience is more than tragedy, it's a violation of the very core of democracy. Sorry DZ, although all of us, including me, accepted your idea for resolving the problem, it did invalidate a legal election.
The role of the Judiciary is a needed one, and to do a credible job, the integrity of the Judiciary must be absolute. To maintain it, it followed that I had to resign to allow Peri to take his richly deserved place on the bench. Having worked with him in the past, his patience, demeanor and knowledge are sorely needed by Fanatica in this time of transition.
If anyone has any questions on my analysis, please PM me and I'll try to answer. There is no need to clutter up threads now that the Opinions have been posted.
In closing, I would like to remind all that this is a time of transition, of change. Several old ways have been discarded, with new ways and new traditions to follow. We all need to be patient with these changes, and use the laws we have ratified to guide us. We won't always accept those laws, or like what they ask us to do, but those laws make up the foundation of our group. Violating them because we don't like them, or because we don't like how they work will lead to chaos and breakdown.
I wish Cyc, Bootstoots and Peri the best of luck on the bench - 'cause next term I'm coming back!
I remain,
-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatica
I started my analysis with an open mind, examining what was there, not what I wanted to be there. If anything, I was more surprised than anyone at the conclusion I came to. It was, however, the only conclusion I could see. Overturning a valid election for the sake of expedience is more than tragedy, it's a violation of the very core of democracy. Sorry DZ, although all of us, including me, accepted your idea for resolving the problem, it did invalidate a legal election.
The role of the Judiciary is a needed one, and to do a credible job, the integrity of the Judiciary must be absolute. To maintain it, it followed that I had to resign to allow Peri to take his richly deserved place on the bench. Having worked with him in the past, his patience, demeanor and knowledge are sorely needed by Fanatica in this time of transition.
If anyone has any questions on my analysis, please PM me and I'll try to answer. There is no need to clutter up threads now that the Opinions have been posted.
In closing, I would like to remind all that this is a time of transition, of change. Several old ways have been discarded, with new ways and new traditions to follow. We all need to be patient with these changes, and use the laws we have ratified to guide us. We won't always accept those laws, or like what they ask us to do, but those laws make up the foundation of our group. Violating them because we don't like them, or because we don't like how they work will lead to chaos and breakdown.
I wish Cyc, Bootstoots and Peri the best of luck on the bench - 'cause next term I'm coming back!
I remain,
-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatica
TerminalMan90
Citizen @ Large
Sorry to lose you Ravensfire. Tough choices must sometimes be made.
Rik made a similar choice in the TurnChat, sticking to CivGeneral's posted orders. The consequences were severe and Fanatican lives were lost as a consequence. But Rik stuck with the law. I congratulate Rik on his sticking to the letter of the law as well as the spirit, even though he knew the possible consequnces.
May this be a lesson to all that would post ill-considered instructions in the instruction thread.
Fanatican lives are in your hands!
Long live the Term one Judiciary as well. Congrats Peri
Rik made a similar choice in the TurnChat, sticking to CivGeneral's posted orders. The consequences were severe and Fanatican lives were lost as a consequence. But Rik stuck with the law. I congratulate Rik on his sticking to the letter of the law as well as the spirit, even though he knew the possible consequnces.
May this be a lesson to all that would post ill-considered instructions in the instruction thread.
Fanatican lives are in your hands!
Long live the Term one Judiciary as well. Congrats Peri
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
The majority's solution is very illegal.
Ravensfire is more than welcome to resign, but the judiciary is making new law here when they claim that they can order Peri (who I have great respect for, so please do not take this as non-support of the esteemed jurist) to be installed as his replacement. The very definition of vacant that was stretched to remarkably high levels to arrive at the conclusion that he could be installed, is actually violated by this same opinion. The CJ position was not vacant by law any more than the other elected positions were vacant before their elections were legally completed. By that standard, all elections should have been suspended, because all offices were vacant, and someone, apparently the non-existant judiciary, should have appointed all offices.
Nevertheless, the opinion regarding the vacancy is posted, and as such we will have to pursue other methods to redress this gross violation of the law. However, the automatic appointment of Peri is another matter entirely.
If ravensfire resigns, then the position is vacant, and the laws surrounding office vacancy should be followed, and it is definately not in the authority of the judiciary to begin naming replacements in their rulings.
The law is clear on how to proceed following a vacancy. If ravensfire resigns, please follow the law.
Ravensfire is more than welcome to resign, but the judiciary is making new law here when they claim that they can order Peri (who I have great respect for, so please do not take this as non-support of the esteemed jurist) to be installed as his replacement. The very definition of vacant that was stretched to remarkably high levels to arrive at the conclusion that he could be installed, is actually violated by this same opinion. The CJ position was not vacant by law any more than the other elected positions were vacant before their elections were legally completed. By that standard, all elections should have been suspended, because all offices were vacant, and someone, apparently the non-existant judiciary, should have appointed all offices.
Nevertheless, the opinion regarding the vacancy is posted, and as such we will have to pursue other methods to redress this gross violation of the law. However, the automatic appointment of Peri is another matter entirely.
If ravensfire resigns, then the position is vacant, and the laws surrounding office vacancy should be followed, and it is definately not in the authority of the judiciary to begin naming replacements in their rulings.
The law is clear on how to proceed following a vacancy. If ravensfire resigns, please follow the law.
There can be no question that the majority opinion must take hold. In fact, such opinions take the effect of law according to our current 3 books.
I believe the point of the majority opinion is this:
Stating that Peri must be appointed to the AJ position is only partially accurate. By the logic of the initial elections being valid, the AJ position was not vacant so it could not have been filled by the special election. This is a compromise position which appears to be motivated by allowing both elections to be valid.
By the current law we'll almost certainly get a refusal poll posted in response to the forced appointment. In effect this will create a 3rd election between Peri and "nobody". If the vote in that poll is a majority for "no", then the President will be free to appoint someone else.
The lessons to be learned from all of this (for DG5, and for future legal changes in DG4) are
I believe the point of the majority opinion is this:
- A valid (at that point in time) election was held for associate justices, and Peri and Bootstoots won the AJ positions.
- A valid (at that point in time) election was held for Chief Justice, and Ravensfire and Cyc tied for 1st.
- Article G of the constitution regarding vacant does not apply to the case of a tied election
- The law changed between the perfectly valid AJ and CJ elections and the commencement of the special election
- The special election was valid with respect to the CJ position, according to the laws in effect at the time it began, but it did not take into consideration that there were already two associate justices. The AJ positions were already filled, so it is logically impossible to fill them again using the 2nd and 3rd place candidates.
Stating that Peri must be appointed to the AJ position is only partially accurate. By the logic of the initial elections being valid, the AJ position was not vacant so it could not have been filled by the special election. This is a compromise position which appears to be motivated by allowing both elections to be valid.
By the current law we'll almost certainly get a refusal poll posted in response to the forced appointment. In effect this will create a 3rd election between Peri and "nobody". If the vote in that poll is a majority for "no", then the President will be free to appoint someone else.
The lessons to be learned from all of this (for DG5, and for future legal changes in DG4) are
- Don't start until the rules are in place
- Acknowledge in the law somewhere that rule changes are inevitable, and state how such changes are to be handled. One example could be "once an election cycle has started, the rules in effect at the beginning of the cycle will remain in effect until the cycle is completed and all offices are filled".
- If we do amendments, we need to specify when they take effect.
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
If Peri is appointed to the position of Associate Justice without following the law (CoL H.3.a), then I call for a Citizen Complaint against the President, the Chief Justice, and the two Associate Justices for violation of that law.
It is a easy law to follow folks. Please do so.
It is a easy law to follow folks. Please do so.
