Term 1 - Judiciary

[DaveShack]

Commentary for JR3:

I'll keep this brief for now. This is not the ruling, just comments at this point. The idea of Article C was indeed to allow a CoL which completely eliminated or partially restricted one or more decision types, other than initiative. Making some offices immune to recall, and grouping other offices together falls within the idea of allowing restrictions. If we ruled that the restriction that the whole Triumvirate clause doesn't limit impeaching a single member, then we'd be opening the door to saying the restriction on impeaching the judiciary is also invalid.

This is not a self-serving comment, but it is critical that the Court is free to act without regard to public opinion, else we would have to relinquish our impartiality. Imagine a case of technical violation of the law, but public opinion saying to dismiss the charges. We can't just dismiss charges out of fear of impeachment, we must accept the charges and let the people vote on guilt or innocence. Likewise we can't hang someone out of public opinion, we have to look objectively at the facts and be free to dismiss a case without legal foundation.

If we agree that the Court's impartiality must be protected, then we have to accept that Section 7 is allowed to place restrictions on impeachment. As always I'm open to comments, if anyone sees a flaw in this reasoning please feel free to let us know.

Wow, I said "brief" -- guess not...

 

[DaveShack]

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

Hmm, that should be a fairly easy one. The Minister of the Interior is supposed to appoint a Governor of each new city. I wonder why that hasn't happened yet...

 

[ravensfire]

Hmm, that should be a fairly easy one. The Minister of the Interior is supposed to appoint a Governor of each new city. I wonder why that hasn't happened yet...

You'd think it's an easy one ...

IIIC. The Powers and Duties of the Minister of Interior:

1. The Minister of the Interior shall be in control of all workers not assigned to Governors.
2. The Minister of the Interior shall designate any specialization of Cities
3. The Minister of the Interior shall designate how many units of each type to produce.

A. The Governors may work it out amongst themselves on which city actually produces what.​

4. The Minister of the Interior may decide where to build any Citizens Assembly approved Wonder.
5. The Minister of the Interior shall keep track of the resources in our territory and where they are.
6. The Minister of the Interior shall control all Great Engineers.​

​

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Here's the other relevant section, emphasis added.

Section 2 The Local Government

A) Governors
I. Governors are the elected officials that run cities or states.IA. The Powers and Duties of the Governors:

1. The Governors may move any workers or garrison units assigned to them anywhere in there city's radius or state boundaries.
2. The Governor shall work with the Minister of the Interior to decide which improvement shall be built.
3. The Designated Player shall act as Governor of any cities build during his play session at the end of which, the office is declared vacant.
4. The first elected governor of a city or state may select the official flag of that city or state.​

IB. Powers and Duties of the Governors Council:

1. The Governors Council shall not exist until there are at least three Governors. Until then vacant Gubernatorial offices shall filled by an appointment of the Minister of the Interior.
2. The Governors Council shall consist of the Governors of all Cities and States.
3. Any vacant Gubernatorial office will be filled by an appointment of the Governors Council.
4. The Governors Council may veto the actions of any member of the Cabinet with a 6/10 (60%) majority.
5. The Governors Council may end a State of Mobilization prematurely by a 6/10 (60%) vote after at least 7 game turns of Mobilization have passed.​

 

[ravensfire]

Sheesh - I stand corrected, but that's way, way too convoluted. Alas, that's typical of the Tri.

I withdraw my question!

-- Ravensfire

 

[Swissempire]

Sheesh - I stand corrected, but that's way, way too convoluted. Alas, that's typical of the Tri.

I withdraw my question!

-- Ravensfire

Sheesh, thats way untrue. Alas, thats typical of the Flexies!

 

[ravensfire]

Sheesh, thats way untrue. Alas, thats typical of the Flexies!

*sigh* Now you're just trolling.

EDIT: I don't mind debate, but the name-calling? Please.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Octavian X]

In my work on the up-and-coming proposed Flexible Government ruleset, I've been making an effort to integrate the Constitional concepts of Initiative and Referendum into the language of the document. Though I believe Judge Advocate donsig made reference to the definitions in JR1, it was at best indirect and wasn't a major part of the discussion.

This is, then, the question I submit to the Judiciary - what defines a Referendum, and what defines an Initiative? In what ways are they different from one another?

 

[Blkbird]

Octavian X, please there is a ongoing discussion within the members of the Judiciary Review Board regarding if and how an Initiative may be regulated and resticted. Justice donsig believes it may not at all, which, if confirmed, would make your proposed polling standard unconstitutional.

 

[donsig]

Commentary for JR3:

If we ruled that the restriction that the whole Triumvirate clause doesn't limit impeaching a single member, then we'd be opening the door to saying the restriction on impeaching the judiciary is also invalid.

This is not a self-serving comment, but it is critical that the Court is free to act without regard to public opinion, else we would have to relinquish our impartiality. Imagine a case of technical violation of the law, but public opinion saying to dismiss the charges. We can't just dismiss charges out of fear of impeachment, we must accept the charges and let the people vote on guilt or innocence. Likewise we can't hang someone out of public opinion, we have to look objectively at the facts and be free to dismiss a case without legal foundation.

If we agree that the Court's impartiality must be protected, then we have to accept that Section 7 is allowed to place restrictions on impeachment. As always I'm open to comments, if anyone sees a flaw in this reasoning please feel free to let us know.

Speaking for myself I do not need to be protected from the possibility of impeachment to retain my impartiality. I have no qualms about sticking with what I think is right even in the face of an impassioned and outspoken citizenry who happens to disagree with me. So I do not agree that justices must be untouchable in order for us to have an impartial judiciary.

I also do not think being elected to the judiciary makes one infallible nor do I think that giving one absolute job security makes him or her uncorruptible. But that's only me. If the citizens want it that way then fine - but since the constitution specifically allows for the recall of an official they have to make any exceptions clear in the constitution and not in a lower form of law. What prevents citizens from passing various and sundry laws that exempt each and every official from impeachment? By reading only the constitution, how can we make distinctions regarding who can and can't be impeached?

While I agree that lower forms of law can clarify the constitution we must be on guard so as not to allow lower forms of law to alter the fundamental meaning of what is written in the constitution. Those type of changes must be by amending the constitution and not using the code of laws as a back door way of sneaking in changes.

donsig
Judge Advocate

 

[von_Clausewitz]

i disagree that the constitution specifically allows the recall of an official.

it does say specifically that:

"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."

and among the following ways, recall is listed as one of the ways that the power of the people can be delegated to officials. the list is possible methods. it does not specifically force any of the listed possible methods to be used with the exception of initiative which is enforced later in the text. "A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except
Initiative must always be allowed"

in stating that "Initiative must always be allowed", it suggests that the other methods may be disallowed. it is my opinion that the constitution provides an option for recall, and that it is up to the lower forms of law to allow or restrict that option.

a better question for the courts would be: can there be an initiative for the removal of an official?

and so that i don't make two posts back to back;

i would like to call the courts to investigate the absence of the Minister of the Interior.

and so that there isn't three back to back;

related to the previous request, a few questions.
can a Minister level official hold a deputy position for another Minister?
if a Minister level official can hold a deputy position for another position, and they are then advanced to the second Minister position, can they retain both positions?

and finally, for reference: the difference between initiative and referendum - though both are binding polls, initiative is begun by a citizen, referendum is begun by an official (someone who holds an office). an initiative carries more weight then a referendum. a decision by initiative is more lasting in that it continues to effect future decisions of the same type.

 

[DaveShack]

Speaking for myself I do not need to be protected from the possibility of impeachment to retain my impartiality. I have no qualms about sticking with what I think is right even in the face of an impassioned and outspoken citizenry who happens to disagree with me. So I do not agree that justices must be untouchable in order for us to have an impartial judiciary.

I feel personally secure as well, but next term we may or may not have the three wise men as justices. The law must be strong enough to handle such a situation.

but since the constitution specifically allows for the recall of an official they have to make any exceptions clear in the constitution and not in a lower form of law. What prevents citizens from passing various and sundry laws that exempt each and every official from impeachment? By reading only the constitution, how can we make distinctions regarding who can and can't be impeached?

I wrote Article A.2 and A.2.a with this argument in mind.

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

A rule which restricts impeachment (recall) is more specific than a general rule which says recall is allowed. This is a clarification, not a contradiction. Furthermore, Article C.4 specifically allows decision types to remain non-implemented or restricted in the CoL

A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types
​

While I agree that lower forms of law can clarify the constitution we must be on guard so as not to allow lower forms of law to alter the fundamental meaning of what is written in the constitution. Those type of changes must be by amending the constitution and not using the code of laws as a back door way of sneaking in changes.

I agree on the general point that we don't want backdoor changes -- but this particular issue was anticipated, it's not a backdoor change.

The whole point of this ruleset is that the offices other than the judiciary are not stated in the Constitution -- therefore it cannot specify what offices (other than the judiciary) can and can't be impeached. That must come in the layer which defines the offices themselves.

 

[ravensfire]

Speaking for myself I do not need to be protected from the possibility of impeachment to retain my impartiality. I have no qualms about sticking with what I think is right even in the face of an impassioned and outspoken citizenry who happens to disagree with me. So I do not agree that justices must be untouchable in order for us to have an impartial judiciary.

donsig is right that the best Judicial candidates simply won't care. They will do their job to the best of their abilities and worry about the consequences later.

I would be concerned about a group of Citizens so incensed by a ruling that, rather than draft an amendment that would address the matter, tries to remove a Justice.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

A rule which restricts impeachment (recall) is more specific than a general rule which says recall is allowed. This is a clarification, not a contradiction. Furthermore, Article C.4 specifically allows decision types to remain non-implemented or restricted in the CoL

As I said earlier, I see a difference between *restriction* and *prohibition*. There is a difference between saying you can't sell alcohol after two am and you can't sell alcohol at all.

The whole point of this ruleset is that the offices other than the judiciary are not stated in the Constitution -- therefore it cannot specify what offices (other than the judiciary) can and can't be impeached. That must come in the layer which defines the offices themselves.

Where in the constitution does it say judiciary members cannot be impeached? Where in the constitution does it say some officials can be impeached and others can't? The constitution merely lists recall as one of the decision types. The real question here is is recall a right of the people or not?

I would like to point out that we can amend the constitution in specific ways without altering the basic usability of the document for later games. Just tack on amendments at the end. When then next game starts throw them out.

It must be kept in mind though that this is an untried constitution and we may want to modify it for the next game. Personally, I think the whole idea of a recall is abominable. Elected officials should not be subjected to the whims of citizens' passions. Sure, it should be possible to remove officials but only if they do something that breaks the rules. In other words, only through a trial conducted by the judiciary. If an official breaks no rules he or she should be allowed to keep office despite the public's current feelings. The people can always vote the official out next time.

But it is not what I think that counts here. What counts is what is written in the constitution, and lower laws as long as they do not conflict with the constitution. Bear in mind that we arew dealing with a code of laws that was passed without any judicial review. We cannot merely blindly accept it as constitutional.

I agree on the general point that we don't want backdoor changes -- but this particular issue was anticipated, it's not a backdoor change.

It is of course difficult to argue intent with the actual writer. I don't think intent comes into play here. There is no internal constitutional conflict so we don't have to go back and ask what the intent was behind the conflicting articles. We must adhere to what is actually written. Recalls are written in and I see them as a right guaranteed to the people by the constitution which a lower form of law may not prohibit.

a better question for the courts would be: can there be an initiative for the removal of an official?

A very insightful question! Again, looking at the wording of the constitution, we'd have to conclude that an initiative to remove an official would be legal.

 

[ravensfire]

A very insightful question! Again, looking at the wording of the constitution, we'd have to conclude that an initiative to remove an official would be legal.

I quite agree - it is a good question.

Actually, I would consider Recall to be an Initiative poll - it's started by the citizens, after all!

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[ravensfire]

As a note to my fellow Justices, I started a discussion on Article C of the Constitution - Decision Making.

Link to thread.

We've struggled a bit during some of our discussion over how to decide between different polls types, and the intention behind them. Hopefully, this discussion will produce the clarity that we're desiring without a Judicial Review needed.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[DaveShack]

i would like to call the courts to investigate the absence of the Minister of the Interior.

So noted and added to the docket as C4DG1AI2. I'll check out whether there have been any updates from the Minister since this request and send the PM/email as required.

related to the previous request, a few questions.
can a Minister level official hold a deputy position for another Minister?
if a Minister level official can hold a deputy position for another position, and they are then advanced to the second Minister position, can they retain both positions?

This question is accepted as C4DG1JR4. I'm pressed for time at the moment and the Justices need to prepare our rulings on JR3, so one of us will post the relevant law sections when we get a spare moment.

 

[ravensfire]

Question:
can a Minister level official hold a deputy position for another Minister?
if a Minister level official can hold a deputy position for another position, and they are then advanced to the second Minister position, can they retain both positions?

Relevant law:
Section 8 Limit to Running and Holding Offices

A) Limits to Running for Offices.
I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.

B) Limits to Holding Offices.
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
IA. An exception to this is a member of the Triumvirate assuming the duties and powers of a vacant Triumvirate office.
II. A member of the Cabinet may hold one other Cabinet office, Gubernatorial office or a Deputy position.

III. A Governor may hold one other Gubernatorial office, a Cabinet office, or a Deputy position.

IV. A citizen with no other positions may hold two Deputy positions.

V. Being a member of the Designated Player Pool is not considered holding an office and thus is not counted against a Citizen in terms of being able to run for and hold multiple offices.

 

[ravensfire]

mhcarver has come before the Court asking:

must the whole triumvirate be impeached or can the citizens assembly impeach individual members without removing the entire triumvirate?

Relevant Law
Article C of the Constitution
Section 7 of the Code of Laws

Citizen Comments
Thanks to Blkbird and von Clausewitz, and the members of the Judiciary for an excellent debate. I would like to specifically thank donsig for requesting this review on this important topic.

Analysis
The heart of this Judicial Review lies with Article C of the Constitution. On it's face, Section 7 of the Code of Laws is quite clear. The question thus becomes, it Section 7 constitutional? Can this section restrict the right of Recall granted in Article C of the Constitution?

Our Constitution is designed to be a broad framework - covering the core areas and basic rights, while allowing lower forms of law to provide more detail and the actual government structure. This can cause conflict, as happens here. Article 2.A of the Constitution states "No rule shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution." Article C has several relevant clauses that introduce some internal conflict.

C.1.2 says "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." The implication is that Power resides solely with the People unless they chose to delegate it to an official. Article C.1.2 does just that in Mandate, by explicitly granted officials some Power. The other defined methods do not directly delegate Power.

C.4 though speaks directly to the point "A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except 1) Initiative must always be allowed 2) No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution."

C.4 specifically grants to lower forms of law the ability to "specify procedures and restrictions". This grant is limited in that Initiatives must always be allowed and sets a maximum decision standard. The first limitation "Initiative must always be allowed" gives guidance to what the Framers intended with this clause.

In reviewing the discussion threads creating the Constitution, further guidance can also be found in comments by DaveShack (the primary author) "...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." The intent is quite clear - lower forms of law can even disregard some forms of decision making, although how that would be actually be done from a practical sense is rather mind-boggling.

Given this intent, it follows that the "specify procedures and restrictions" phrase allows lower forms of laws to explain the process of using the decision types and restricting in a reasonable manner how they are used. Unreasonable restrictions, such as requiring polls to be open 10 days to be binding, but allowing no more than 7 days between game sessions, cannot be allowed to stand.

I find that the Constitution can limit itself, allowing Article C.4 to override the general protection granted by Article 2.A. The procedures and restrictions found in lower law are valid, so long as they are reasonable.

In this case, Section 7 of the Code of Laws requires that the Triumverate be impeached as a whole. I do not find that restriction to be unreasonable. Thus, I find that Section 7 of the Code of Laws is constitutional and valid. Accordingly, the members of the Triumverate can only be impeached as a group, and may not be impeached individually.

Ruling
A successful Impeachment of the Triumverate will render all three offices Vacant, removing the citizens from those offices. The members may not be impeached individually.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[donsig]

The question before the judiciary is straightforward: must the whole triumvirate be impeached or can the citizens assembly impeach individual members without removing the entire triumvirate?

Short answer:

Yes, individual members of the triumvirate may be impeached without removing the entire triumvirate.

Long-winded legal answer:

Section 7.A of our Code of Laws allows the impeachment of the Triumvirate as a whole via a No Confidence Vote. The No Confidence Vote is a legal and constitutional method for removing the triumvirate as a whole. Removing individual triumvirate members is not explicitly addressed in either the code of laws or constitution. Nowhere in the code of laws or constitution is the removal of the whole triumvirate explicitly made the exclusive means of removing triumvirate members from office, nor is the removal of individual triumvirate members explicitly prohibited in either document. Given this and the fact that it is possible for both mechanisms (removal of the tri as a whole and removal of individual tri members) to exist within our legal system I find it difficult to answer the question before us in the negative.

Before finalizing an affirmative answer, implicit references to the question should be looked for. The only implicit reference I can find is in Article C of our constitution. Listed in clause C.1.2 are the various constitutionally recognized decision types. Among these is the recall of an official. This implies that citizens retain the right to remove specific individuals from office.

Article C.4 says (in part) a lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types. In my opinion this clause cannot be used to justify the view that the No Confidence Vote of the code of laws was intended to exclude the impeachment of individual triumvirate members. Article C.4 uses the term specify … restrictions on implementing which does not mean prohibits the use of. In short, lower laws may define when and how the decision types are to be put into play. A lower law cannot totally prohibit the use of a recall against an individual official.

In conclusion, not only do our laws not explicitly forbid the recall or impeachment of an individual triumvirate member, our constitution implies citizens retain the right to recall or impeach any official. Therefore the answer to the question before us is yes, individual members of the triumvirate may be impeached without removing the entire triumvirate.

donsig
Judge Advocate