Term 1 ~ Judiciary : Interpereting the Great Experiment!

[Black_Hole]

I would like to here citizens comments on JR#4
It has got me thinking...

 

[Provolution]

You already know what we think of Consul votes. So present an amendment that omist it.
Also make the VP be a running mate or a runner up to the President, so the entire CoC will be elected in a way. We need to close down this undemocratic gap.

 

[Bertie]

I would like to here citizens comments on JR#4
It has got me thinking...

I think the real question here is not why the VP is subjected to a consul vote, but what is so special about a mid-term appointment that would require a consul vote. That is, is there anything inherently so different about appointing a deputy mid-term as opposed to the beginning of the term that it would require consul consultation and approval? If there is something special about a mid-term appointment, then I would think consul approval would be required for all such appointments (not just for the VP). If there isn’t something special about mid-term appointments, then this is verbiage that serves no useful purpose and should be removed.

 

[mad-bax]

VP should be elected or removed from CoC. Mid-term appointments should not be run.
All consular deputies should be replaced with a single elected position - Advisor to the consulate or something. He can fill in for missing consuls.

Everyone is elected - fewer people sat with thumb in bum. Happy days.

 

[Black_Hole]

I understand everyones concerns, however we are not discussing what it should be, but how the laws read it. Thus I have formed my opinion

Chief Justice Opinion on JR#4
This JR comes down to one thing: the power of constitution verse code of laws.

This article:

4. Deputies
a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.

Is in the code of laws, meaning anything in the constitution has precedence over it.
Article D:

2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may
take over the President's tasks when the President is
absent. If the President should be removed from office
for any reason the Vice President will then take the
position of President and appoint a Vice President.
The Vice President must be approved by a majority of
the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

Is in the constitution.
This means even though they are conflicting the constitutional article has control.

Summary
The Vice President is subject to a mid term consul vote, if appointed mid term.

 

[Bertie]

Unless I’m misreading the Constitution (a distinct possibility), the Constitution does NOT say the Vice-President is an unelected position. Article D2 says the VP is the assistant to the President; will perform the President’s tasks when the President is absent; will be elevated to the Presidency if the President is removed from office; will then appoint a new Vice-President; and that new Vice-President must be approved by the consuls (if the new VP is appointed mid-term).

It seems to me the whole thrust of the latter part of article D2 speaks of Presidential and Vice-Presidential succession. I’m not actually seeing the section in the Constitution that says the VP isn’t an elected office at the beginning of a new term; just that if the VP is appointed by a President – who began the term as VP but then ascended to the Presidency – then that new VP’s appointment must be confirmed by the consuls.

As I think about this, I guess one could argue that the VP is a deputy in that he "assists" the President and thus is subject to appointment. However, no other deputy has an entire article in the Constitution devoted to his office, so I'm not sure this argument stands. And of course the VP's title isn't Deputy President, further suggesting that the VP isn't meant to be a "deputy" but rather an elected official. However, this is becoming a semantics discussion (dangerous ground) so I'll shut up.

 

[Black_Hole]

Unless I’m misreading the Constitution (a distinct possibility), the Constitution does NOT say the Vice-President is an unelected position. Article D2 says the VP is the assistant to the President; will perform the President’s tasks when the President is absent; will be elevated to the Presidency if the President is removed from office; will then appoint a new Vice-President; and that new Vice-President must be approved by the consuls (if the new VP is appointed mid-term).

It seems to me the whole thrust of the latter part of article D2 speaks of Presidential and Vice-Presidential succession. I’m not actually seeing the section in the Constitution that says the VP isn’t an elected office at the beginning of a new term; just that if the VP is appointed by a President – who began the term as VP but then ascended to the Presidency – then that new VP’s appointment must be confirmed by the consuls.

As I think about this, I guess one could argue that the VP is a deputy in that he "assists" the President and thus is subject to appointment. However, no other deputy has an entire article in the Constitution devoted to his office, so I'm not sure this argument stands. And of course the VP's title isn't Deputy President, further suggesting that the VP isn't meant to be a "deputy" but rather an elected official. However, this is becoming a semantics discussion (dangerous ground) so I'll shut up.

however there is also nothing saying any of those positions are elected, so it is undefined. Howerver since it is undefined the code of laws is still used...

 

[mad-bax]

Is in the constitution.
This means even though they are conflicting the constitutional article has control.

Then...

however there is also nothing saying any of those positions are elected, so it is undefined. Howerver since it is undefined the code of laws is still used...

Go on admit it Black Hole: The VP position has been the single most contentious issue for your team and the whole thing needs to be re-written. It's a nothing job anyway. Despite the fact that Bertie is a drunkard and can't spell my name I agree with him (again). The path of least resistance is just to remove all references to the VP from the CoL and the Constitution. Let him just be a deputy. In turn the CoC will not contain a reference to the position, and Bob's your uncle. Several Birds, one stone, Job done, down the pub, few beers, deep joy.

 

[blackheart]

2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may
take over the President's tasks when the President is
absent. If the President should be removed from office
for any reason the Vice President will then take the
position of President and appoint a Vice President.
The Vice President must be approved by a majority of
the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

This needs a little clarity, because the first time I saw it I thought it meant if the Vice President were to take over the presidency, he/she would need to have a consul vote.

 

[blackheart]

Go on admit it Black Hole: The VP position has been the single most contentious issue for your team and the whole thing needs to be re-written. It's a nothing job anyway. Despite the fact that Bertie is a drunkard and can't spell my name I agree with him (again). The path of least resistance is just to remove all references to the VP from the CoL and the Constitution. Let him just be a deputy. In turn the CoC will not contain a reference to the position, and Bob's your uncle. Several Birds, one stone, Job done, down the pub, few beers, deep joy.

It's not the judiciary's job to change the Constitution, that's up to citizens.

 

[Black_Hole]

Then...



Go on admit it Black Hole: The VP position has been the single most contentious issue for your team and the whole thing needs to be re-written. It's a nothing job anyway. Despite the fact that Bertie is a drunkard and can't spell my name I agree with him (again). The path of least resistance is just to remove all references to the VP from the CoL and the Constitution. Let him just be a deputy. In turn the CoC will not contain a reference to the position, and Bob's your uncle. Several Birds, one stone, Job done, down the pub, few beers, deep joy.

we are not here to change the constitution, the Judiciary cannot do that. Many peolple today think we can. All we are doing is interpereting. I am against consul votes, however I dont have the right to just rule against them because I dont like them. We are ruling on how constitution is, not how it should be, nor what we want it to be.

 

[Provolution]

mad-bax and Bertie, you cannot beat the Judiciary, they will defend this VP position in the CoC until Armageddon, whatever the price. They will say "Don't fix it, it's not broken", they will ridicule, dig up things you did in the past and mess up your counter-proposal or inputs hundreds of times. It is like this scene from Matrix where hundreds of Agent Smiths show up to beat you to a pulp. Well, they also say amending the constitution is not worth it, and they got this steady group of loyal constitutionalists that will defend it to their death, and then again, we got Strider on the top of that, so legal discussions in this game have become unwanted, personal, territorial and frankly have no future at all.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. Don't start this again. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Black_Hole]

For clarifaction read these 2 articles:

Article F. The Judiciary or Judicial Branch is tasked with upholding,
defending, and interpreting the laws of Fanatannia. The
Judiciary also upholds the rights of all citizens. The
Judiciary may create Judicial Procedures which define how
the Judiciary will operate. These procedures must be
approved by 2/3 of the justices. These procedures are lower
than the Constitution and Code of Laws, so they must be
within the boundaries of the constitution. The Chief
Justice, Judge Advocate, and Public defender make up the
Judiciary.

1. Chief Justice - Organizes and heads the affairs and
discussions of the court. May take place of other
Justices if there is no pro-term justice.

2. Judge Advocate - Prosecutes Citizen Complaints if the
Citizen Complaint is filed anonymously or the accuser
wishes to have the Judge Advocate prosecute. He/she
ensures CCs are following constitution, code of laws,
and court procedures guidelines.

3. Public Defender - Acts as Chief Attorney for the
accused, unless the accused wishes otherwise.
Ensures the accused understands his/her rights and the
accusation.

Article G. The Citizens make up the General Assembly. The General
Assembly is tasked with the creation of laws and leading
the elected officials. After a law is created or changed
by the citizenry, it is presented to the Judiciary to
ensure it is in the correct format and does not violate
the constitution.

 

[Black_Hole]

mad-bax and Bertie, you cannot beat the Judiciary, they will defend this VP position in the CoC until Armageddon, whatever the price. They will say "Don't fix it, it's not broken", they will ridicule, dig up things you did in the past and mess up your counter-proposal or inputs hundreds of times. It is like this scene from Matrix where hundreds of Agent Smiths show up to beat you to a pulp. Well, they also say amending the constitution is not worth it, and they got this steady group of loyal constitutionalists that will defend it to their death, and then again, we got Strider on the top of that, so legal discussions in this game have become unwanted, personal, territorial and frankly have no future at all.

never have I said dont amend the constition, please read my above post. Now lets just say I could remove consul votes because I dont like them. Why dont I remove some other things? what is going to stop me?

Please speak aloud:
The Judiciary Cannot Change Laws, Only Interperet Them
Please repeat 10 times

 

[ravensfire]

See, there's that paranoia streak again, Provo. Really should have that looked at.

Surprise - I happen to agree that putting the VP in the Constitution was a mistake. No reason for it. I feared it would muddy things up a bit, and it has. Please, someone put together an amendment that would strike that clause and renumber all lower clauses.

As for the CoC - call it tradition, call it whatever - I don't see a reason to remove the VP from the CoC for game play purposes. Add a clause striking them for naming reasons to keep our resident naming fanatics happy, and I'll be fine with it.

-- Ravensfire

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[eyrei]

Moderator Action: I'm starting to lose patience here. If you guys (you know who you are) can't discuss things without resorting to insults and veiled accusations, don't participate in the discussions. I don't like to ban people, but if you can't learn to behave, I will do so. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Bertie]

Despite the fact that Bertie is a drunkard and can't spell my name . . .

Mad-bax, I am incredibly chagrined: please accept my apology for misspelling your name. I don’t have time now, but later (probably tomorrow) I’ll try to make an appropriate penance in the thread where I made the mistake.

After eyrei’s warning I almost hesitate to continue the discussion of the Vice-President’s position in the Constitution. Chief Justice Black Hole asked for citizen input on JR#4, and being a citizen – and having largely neglected all judiciary, political, and constitutional questions during my short residence in Fanatannia - I thought it my duty to respond to his plea. I understand the constitution has been a bone of contention among some, and certain citizens seem to have long-standing differences with each other. I’m not a party to any of that, and that’s not why I’m participating in this thread.

I don’t know whether the framers of our Constitution meant for the VP to be an elected or an appointed position. Now that I’ve finally read the entire Constitution – and not just bits and pieces that people have pulled out to support various positions – it’s clear that as it is written the Constitution puts the VP on the same legal and political footing as the President and the Consuls. Article C of the Constitution says there are 4 branches of Government: the Strategic, Tactical, Judicial, and General Assembly. Article D says the members of the Strategic Branch consist of the President, Vice President, and Consuls. Article H3 says “all strategic and tactical positions shall have a deputy.”

Because the Presidency is a strategic position, he should appoint a deputy; but because the Vice President is also a strategic position as defined by the Constitution, he too should appoint a deputy. The inference is that the President’s deputy will be a person separate from the Vice President. In fact under the Constitution it must be a separate person: Article H also stipulates that “no person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (Strategic, Tactical, Judiciary, or Deputy) simultaneously.” What is confusing is the purpose of a deputy is to assist the officeholder; but the purpose of the Vice President is also, in part, to assist an officeholder (the President) as Article D2 makes clear. However, as already discussed most of this article discusses circumstances under which the Vice President might become President.

What’s interesting both about the Constitution and the Code of Laws is that although both of them talk about polls and elections in several cases, neither one of them actually enumerates for which offices elections should be held. One might read the Constitution and conclude that someone – a moderator? – is to appoint the President, Vice President, Consuls, Judiciary, etc. This is a wrong reading, I believe, but it’s not illogical.

Regarding JR#4, it’s a moot case. The Vice President isn’t a deputy, so there is no conflict between the wording of the Constitution and the Code of Laws. A more interesting case might be why we’re currently appointing rather then electing the Vice President since the Constitution makes clear (well, as clear as anything is in the Constitution) that the Vice Presidency is a strategic office, and if the other strategic office holders are to be elected, so must the VP.

Or at least this is my opinion. Now that I've contributed to this thread yet again, I think I'll go hang myself.

 

[mad-bax]

I sincerely hope that the warning was not directed in our direction Bertie. I have 4000 posts to my name and run a competition on this site. I've never been banned. I'm trying to play in character, that's all. If people (including the moderators) don't get it, then too bad I guess. I'll be infamous.

Dropping out of character just for the purposes of this post... there are a number of points I would make.

1. The Judiciary is charged with ensuring that any new laws and ammendments to the constitution are not contradictory. Yet they are unable to rectify contradictions retrospectively.

2. The VP position was appointed, though it is not clear whether that is in-line with the constition or CoL or not.

3. The only position in the CoC that was not elected was the VP.

4. If ammendments to the CoL or constitution cannot be prescribed by the Judiciary, and yet they know there are parts of the constitution that would never have been passed into law had they been ammendments, then the Judiciary are best placed to propose and ammendment.

In fact, the individual laws are not particularly important or interesting to me. Taking on a character and trying to construct arguments from that characters point of view does. It's really funny, and I laugh out loud at some of the things that are written, and how some people take umbrage. Some of the real life evangelical politicians and clergy must have a whale of a time making controversial arguments and then finding ways to misconstrue, distort and otherwise feign taking offence at their opponents comments.

I'll say it again, and again, and again, until it sinks in. I'm playing a game. I will never mean it personally, and I will never take it personally. It's just fun for me to construct an argument and see how people go about dismantling it.

 

[eyrei]

Just to make it clear, the problem posts are ones like these:

mad-bax and Bertie, you cannot beat the Judiciary, they will defend this VP position in the CoC until Armageddon, whatever the price. They will say "Don't fix it, it's not broken", they will ridicule, dig up things you did in the past and mess up your counter-proposal or inputs hundreds of times. It is like this scene from Matrix where hundreds of Agent Smiths show up to beat you to a pulp. Well, they also say amending the constitution is not worth it, and they got this steady group of loyal constitutionalists that will defend it to their death, and then again, we got Strider on the top of that, so legal discussions in this game have become unwanted, personal, territorial and frankly have no future at all.

and

See, there's that paranoia streak again, Provo. Really should have that looked at.

 

[Black_Hole]

I sincerely hope that the warning was not directed in our direction Bertie. I have 4000 posts to my name and run a competition on this site. I've never been banned. I'm trying to play in character, that's all. If people (including the moderators) don't get it, then too bad I guess. I'll be infamous.

Dropping out of character just for the purposes of this post... there are a number of points I would make.

1. The Judiciary is charged with ensuring that any new laws and ammendments to the constitution are not contradictory. Yet they are unable to rectify contradictions retrospectively.

2. The VP position was appointed, though it is not clear whether that is in-line with the constition or CoL or not.

3. The only position in the CoC that was not elected was the VP.

4. If ammendments to the CoL or constitution cannot be prescribed by the Judiciary, and yet they know there are parts of the constitution that would never have been passed into law had they been ammendments, then the Judiciary are best placed to propose and ammendment.

In fact, the individual laws are not particularly important or interesting to me. Taking on a character and trying to construct arguments from that characters point of view does. It's really funny, and I laugh out loud at some of the things that are written, and how some people take umbrage. Some of the real life evangelical politicians and clergy must have a whale of a time making controversial arguments and then finding ways to misconstrue, distort and otherwise feign taking offence at their opponents comments.

I'll say it again, and again, and again, until it sinks in. I'm playing a game. I will never mean it personally, and I will never take it personally. It's just fun for me to construct an argument and see how people go about dismantling it.

just because a justice posts an amendment idea doesnt mean it will do better than any other citizen
If it were possible for us to fix "contradictions" what stops us from choosing which way to fix it? For example, there is a heavily fought issue of whether turnchats are online or off, somehow 2 contradicting parts get into the constitution. what you want is that the judiciary should pick which way it should go, bad idea

#3 has been talked about, but most people believe it to be a good idea

If you want to remove the VP part of article D, go ahead and start a discussion on it. Then post a proposed poll(not an actual poll) within the requirements of the constitution, and the judiciary will decide if it contradicts with any other laws, and in that case it wouldnt. then a poll will be posted by me and people vote on it

btw, would the PD and JA please give opinions on the out-standing judicial matters?