Term 1 - Judiciary

[donsig]

Edit: On the other hand, Ravensfire's point seems to be that the CJ could state the type of poll in the actual poll using the "correct" definition. This would work and it might be less error-prone, but it wouldn't answer donsig's apparent motivation of teaching people to clarify the poll type on their own. (don't want to put words in his mouth but this is what it seems).

Since the CJ is part of the Judiciary which is responsible for deciding things like is this particular poll binding or non-binding? it does not seem to be a good system to have the CJ responsible for posting said polls. DaveShack as a citizen retains the right to post whatever polls he sees fit but polls he posts in his capacity as CJ are different from those he posts as a citizen.

Don't have time to post about my motivation now - hope to address that later. Rushed for time right now.

 

[ravensfire]

donsig,

In most cases, we shouldn't. In this case, however, we do post the poll to approve/reject an amendment. The onus is on us to present the proposal in the correct format to the citizens. It should not be on the citizen with the proposal. We ask them to put it in a proposed poll format as a warning to everyone in the discussion that they'd better hurry up! It serves as a verification to us that the citizens have seen the exact language that is presented to us, and has had some time to review it.

As for the determining the type of other polls, I cannot disagree with you. I do not want to have JR after JR asking if poll A is this, or poll B is that. We need clear, plain-spoken statements on how citizens can determine the type of poll. We talked about that during our discussions, so you know my views on that.

EDIT: I think I'm not being clear. For an amendment poll, I feel that the Chief Justice is the responsible party for posting the poll and all language in the poll EXCEPT for the proposed law itself - that should be copied from the proposed poll. For all other polls, I do not want (and will do durn near anything to avoid) the Judiciary involved determining what type of poll it is.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

To get back where I left off earlier, the Chief Justice and Public Defender together have hit the nail on the head concerning my motives. Yes, I want to encourage eveyone to post polls that are clear and fair. Bad polls can take alot of the fun out of this game and make more work for the judiciary, two things I'd like to avoid.

I can understand the Public Defender's desire to have the Chief Justice write up amendment polls but I have to disagree with it. The judiciary is responsible for determining the legal status of polls - that's what we did in our first and only ruling so far. Since we may be called upon to judge polls we should not be in the business of writing them. That could put us in the awkward position of judging our own work. With all due respect to DaveShack, I think it is a bad idea to assume the Chief Justice is automatically a good poll writer. If officials were automatically trustworthy and good at performing the duties of their office then we wouldn't need laws, especially those about impeaching officials. I think the formatting of all polls should be worked out in the individual discussion threads where all citizens have a chance to give unput. I further think that where proposed laws are concerned the judicary should post polls exactly as they are written in the appropriate discussion threads.

 

[DaveShack]

Proposed change to Judicial Procedures:

This is partially unformatted, details to be worked out prior to approval.

When conducting a review of a proposed law (Constitution or CoL amendment), citizens are requested to use a template found in the Judiciary thread for the mock poll. If upon submission of the JR request, if the mock poll does not contain the major elements of the template, any justice may request the poll be restated in that form. This step is to help ensure the people are presented with an informed choice, while keeping the court's role as impartial reviewers. Ideally, when the official poll is created by the CJ (or another justice as needed), the contents of the mock poll can be copied directly into the official poll without modification.

Suggested template: (credit to PD Ravensfire)

Thread Title: [RULESET] Amendment - [SECTION]

Text:
This is a Citizen's Initiative poll for the amendment of the [RULESET], [SECTION]. The purpose of this amendment is to [PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT].

This is a public poll, and will run for 4 days. For this amendment to pass, a 6/10 majority of voters must vote 'Yes'.

[LINK TO DISCUSSION THREAD]

Do you wish to adopt this amendments?

[OLD LAW]

[NEW LAW]


Poll Question: Do you wish to amend [SECTION] of [RULESET] as follows?

Yes
No
Abstain

Poll settings:
Duration - 4 days
Public Poll - Checked


Definitions:
[RULESET] - Constitution or Code of Laws
[SECTION] - Article/Section being changed
[PURPOSE] - Briefly, why the amendment?
[LINK] - Provide a link to all relevant discussion threads
[OLD LAW] - Formatted text of the old law
[NEW LAW] - Formatted text of the new law
​

 

[donsig]

Proposed change to Judicial Procedures:

This is partially unformatted, details to be worked out prior to approval.

What is *to be worked out prior to approval*? The details of the judicial procedure or the details of the various amendments that will use the template?

As for the template itself there's one typo I see:

Do you wish to adopt this amendments? shoudl be Do you wish to adopt this amendment?, shouldn't it?

I vote to add the template (with above typo corrected) to the judicial procedures.

If the details to be worked out concern the judicial procedures then I would merely add a statement saying this template will be used by the judiciary when posting amendment polls.

 

[DaveShack]

To be worked out is the detail of the judicial procedure. It was pretty late at night.

 

[DaveShack]

The "Impeaching Governors" amendment thread has been updated with a change in substance and a new mock poll has been posted using the suggested template or something substantially similar to it.

Justices, please reconvene on JR2 and post your opinions based on the new content and format.

 

[donsig]

I find the proposed amendment (as in post #12 of the discussion thread linked to below) to have no conflicts with our constitution or code of laws.

Link to discussion thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151129

The proposed poll in post #13 of the thread listed above is good except it needs the link to the discussion thread. I suggest we make the minor changes needed to bring the poll in line with the judicial template when posting it.

donsig
Judge Advocate

 

[ravensfire]

With the typo corrected, the Public Defender agrees with the changes to the court procedures.

I will also wait for the 24 hour discussion period after the latest mock poll to pass before ruling on JR2.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[ravensfire]

Public Defender's ruling on C4DG1JR2:

This proposal does not conflict with any existing laws, and should be presented to the people for approval.

I note that this approval is based on this proposed poll with the correction stipulated by donsig (include the discussion link).

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[DaveShack]

I find that the proposed amendment does not conflict with existing laws, and may proceed to the polls, agreeing with the stipulation on which poll format to be followed.

By a 3-0 decision the court finds on C4DG1JR2 that the proposed amendment does not conflict with any existing laws.

 

[ravensfire]

Fellow citizens,

We've had a JR request - C4DG1JR3 - outstanding for a bit, without any discussion on it. DaveShack, donsig and I have had a very brief discussion about this JR, and want to get more involvement from all of you on this matter.

The last post in this will copy in all relevant law that's been referenced. Please, your comments are valuable and welcome!

From donsig:

I agree we should rule on it. I haven't seen any discussion on this. I'm ready to make my decision. Basically, I do not agree that *what is not written is not valid*. I take the opposite view that *if something isn't specifically prohibited it's valid*. The constitution gives citiens the right to recall an individual official and I do not see the Triumvirate as being exempt from this. A vote of no confidence to remove the whole Tri is a valid law but I do not see that mechanism as precluding the possibility of recalling one of it's members. It is not an either or proposition. If the people want both mechanisms in place in order to retain greater flexibility in overseeing the Triumverate then they have the right to do so since there is no law that specifically says a single member of the Tri cannot be recalled or impeached.

 

[ravensfire]

From Ravensfire:

Excellent - I was hoping to see some discussion prior to ruling.

donsig - I think you're looking at the last clause in Article C.1.2 - "By Recall of an official and selection of a replacement via election or appointment".

In that same Article, however, Article C.4 specifically allows "A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except

• Initiative must always be allowed
• No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution.

"

The Code of Laws does go on to both specify procedures AND to restrict how the Recall provision may be used. As the Constitution allows this, I think it stands.

 

[ravensfire]

From donsig:

Article A.2: No rule shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution.

Article C.1.2: By Recall of an official and selection of a replacement via election or appointment.

I read this to mean citizens reserve the right to recall an official. If such a case arose I would use C.1.2 and A.2 in combination to strike down those parts of the Code of Laws that prohibit impeaching a single official. (Yes, even governors or judiciary members.). If there are to be exceptions made to the constitutional recall process then the changes must be made within the constitution.

As for Article C.1.4 (A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except...) use of the word *restrictions* here must not be interpreted in a way that allows for backdoor amendments to the constitution. A *restriction* is not a *prohibition*. Article C.1.4 allows lower forms of law to specify how and when certain decision types are to be used it does not prevent them from being used at all. Initiatives are an exception because they can never be restricted at all - anyone can post an initiative at any time in any form.

By interpreting *restrictions* as *prohibitions* the result is an internal constitutional conflict. By interpreting *restrictions* to mean rules regarding the proper and valid use of decision types* there is no internal constitutional conflict. Therefore I use the latter interpretation and conclude that lower forms of law cannot prohibit the recall of an official. While the lower law in question is valid for removing the Tri as a whole it, in itself, cannot be used to prevent the recall of one member of the Tri. That would take a constitutional amendment.

 

[ravensfire]

Relevant laws:

Constitution
Article A - Forms of Law

1. Governing rules shall consist of this Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented.
2. No rule shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution.
   • Rules which are more specific on a given point may clarify more general points without being contradictory.

Article C - Decision Making

1. Power of the People
   1. All decision making power within the Democracy Game is derived from the collective rights of all the citizens.
   2. The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered.
      • By Mandate as evidenced in a citizen's selection to hold office via the elective process.
      • By Constituency as evidenced by citizen comments in favor of a decision, in a public discussion.
      • By Opinion Poll in the form of the results of a non-binding poll
      • By Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.
      • By Initiative in the form of a binding poll initiated by the citizenry, which has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type
      • By Recall of an official and selection of a replacement via election or appointment
   3. In the event that two or more such delegations of the Power of the People are in conflict, the following hierarchy shall determine which decision has precedence.
      • An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.
      • Binding polls of any type have precedence over any other decision type.
      • Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.
      • Citizen input has precedence over mandate.
      • If two or more polls or discussions occur on a matter, the last one to complete shall prevail.
      • Lower forms of law may modify parts of this hierarchy, except for the provision regarding initiative which may not be modified.
   4. A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except
      • Initiative must always be allowed
      • No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution.

Code of Laws
Section 7 Impeachment

A) Impeachment of the Triumvirate
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring a No Confidence Vote against the Triumvirate as a whole.

II. A No Confidence Vote requires a 6/10 (60%) majority to pass.

III. A successful No Confidence Vote shall remove the entire Triumvirate from office.

 

[ravensfire]

What is not in question is how the Code of Laws reads - that's pretty clear. The question is whether or not that particular clause is Constitutional or not.

donsig, I'm not sure there is an internal conflict with the Constitution here. Article A.2 and A.2.a are pretty straightforward - lower law cannot contradict the Constitution. I believe, however, that there is an implied exception to this - "Unless explicitly granted permission by the Constitution."

Looking at Article C.4, there's a great deal of power given to the lower forms of law here. When combined with C.2 ("... in one or more of the following ways ..."), it's pretty clear that the framers intended for the lower bodies of law to determine which of those powers should be used, and how they would be used. The only required form of POtP is the Initiative. This Article gives wide latitude to the Code of Laws, and that must be respected.

The framers of the Code of Laws chose to impliment the Recall power, with regards to the Triumverate, is a very limited manner - it's all or nothing. That is the restriction the CoL chose to go with. The specific rules about how to do that are the procedures.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[DaveShack]

Both possible answers have some basis, so I'm still looking for additional input, if any other citizens would care to offer an opinion.

 

[Blkbird]

I agree with donsig, in particular, what's quoted from him above in #92 and #94.

I do, however, have a different opinion than his regarding Initiatives. The Constitution says "Initiative must always be allowed", that doesn't imply there mustn't be any "procedures and restrictions" defined for Initiatives. I read the words "always allowed" as "no matter what procedures and restrictions lower forms of law adds, they must not remove Iniative as a mean", not as "no matter what procedures and restrictions lower forms of law adds, they don't apply to Initiatives".

 

[ravensfire]

I've done some further digging into a few things (slow day for ClearCase - again). Specifically, I was looking for some hint as to the intent of the passages. Here's the discussion thread on PotP.

To be honest, there really wasn't a lot about this particular Article. Some concerns and questions were raised, and some of those were answered. Heck - my own comment in this thread is both rather different from my current viewpoint (purpose of Initiative) and the same (CoL).

There is a comment by DaveShack, in an edit to the first post -

Modified section 4 to require initiative, to accomodate Black_Hole's suggestion to allow lower forms of law to only require Mandate and Initiative. The addition preserve's the people's power if the CoL were to say Mandate is the only required decision making process.

I think the intent is clearly to allow lower laws to pick and choose the specific poll types, requiring only Initiative to be recognized. Having a lower form of law allow a poll in certain circumstances logically follows with that.

EDIT:
What this does highlight (and I've commented on before) is that we need a clear discussion on this article to clarify the various poll types. While the possibility of a new Code of Laws would impact this decision, it would not remove the need for the discussion. We would certainly want to review any new CoL proposal to see if it does clarify the polls types in a mannet that matches the current understanding.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[ravensfire]

As a Citizen, I request the Court consider my questions for Judicial Review.

First, right now, who controls the build queue and worker allocation of our Capital city?

Second, we will eventually build a second city, who controls the build queue and worker allocation for that city?

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire