Term 1 - Judiciary

[DaveShack]

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

Short answer: The whole triumvirate must be impeached as a whole. Individual impeachments are not permitted.

Legal reasoning:

Article A.2.a allows a lower law which is more specific on a point clarify an Article which is generally applicable to the same point.

Article A.2.a Rules which are more specific on a given point may clarify more general points without being contradictory.
​

Article C defines Recall as one of the citizen actions which may be permitted by a lower law, but C.4 permits a lower law to restrict the implementation of a decision type. This along with A.2.a allows the CoL to restrict, or limit, the implementation of recall. No limit is placed on such a restriction, except that it may not require more votes than an amendment to the Constitution.

Given that the CoL may implement and restrict Recall, I turn to the section on Impeachment.

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.

B) Impeachment of Cabinet Officials
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring an Impeachment Vote against any Cabinet Official.

II. An Impeachment Vote requires a 51/100 (51%) majority to pass.

III. A successful Impeachment Vote shall remove the specific official named in it from office.

C) Impeachment of Governors
I. Governors may not be Impeached.

D) Impeachment of Judges
I. Judges may not be Impeached..

E) Impeachment Polls
I. Impeachment Polls will have three options Yes, No, and Abstain.

II. Impeachment Poll may be started no earlier that 7 days after a previous one on the same office during the same term.
​

This section includes a comprehensive list of every type of elected official position. Each type of position has a specification of what impeachment is allowed for that office:
Triumvirate -- impeachment as a whole
Cabinet -- impeachment as individuals
Governors -- no impeachment
Justices -- no impeachment

Because this list is complete, there is no room to interpret it that additional, conflicting kinds of impeachment are allowed. Since the Triumvirate is listed, the only method of impeaching the Triumvirate is as a whole, as specified in the CoL.

 

[DaveShack]

The court has ruled 2-1 that impeachment of the Triumvirate can only result in all three offices being declared vacant, and that impeachment of an individual member of the Triumvirate is not allowed.

 

[DaveShack]

The required time period of 48 hours has passed without a response from Aythanaeus. It is now time for the Court to vote on the question:

Shall Aythanaeus be declared absent from the game, and the post of Minister of the Interior declared vacant?

The CJ votes yes.

 

[ravensfire]

Shall Aythanaeus be declared absent from the game, and the post of Minister of the Interior declared vacant?

The Public Defender votes Yes

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Shall Aythanaeus be declared absent from the game, and the post of Minister of the Interior declared vacant?

Aythanaeus has not posted since Jan. 6, '06. That was in the absence registry and listed a return of Jan 8. It is now Jan 22.

The JA votes yes.

 

[DaveShack]

The court has ruled 3-0 that Aythanaeus is absent from the game, and the office of Minister of the Interior is vacant. The deputy minister Nomad Bryce assumes the role of MoI.

 

[von_Clausewitz]

Interesting rulings for C4dg1jr3.

Correct me of course if I am wrong in the following statements.

The Constitution only requires Initiative as a decision making method.
The Constitution grants lower forms of law to grant or restrict the other methods that are listed in the Constitution.

All of these would actually be considered to require an Initiative decision any way, so in a sense those don't matter much for my question. With the exception of the following decisions:
Declare War/Make Peace/Alliance,
change civics,
to begin construction on a Great Wonder/National Wonder/Project,
a change in Taxes greater that 10% more than once every 10 turns,
and where to build new cities.

Does the current Code of Laws allow a method of decision other then Initaitive or Mandate? Would methods other then Initiative or Mandate be able to be enforced?

Just in case the Courts rule in favor of common sense, which they have to this point, I have another question.

What measures could a citizen take to prevent a Mandate from being carried out while either Initiative discussion or actual polling is under way?

 

[donsig]

Interesting rulings for C4dg1jr3.

Correct me of course if I am wrong in the following statements.

The Constitution only requires Initiative as a decision making method.
The Constitution grants lower forms of law to grant or restrict the other methods that are listed in the Constitution.

The constitution does not require any decisions be made at all. IMHO (which is not necessarily shared by my brethren on the bench) the constitution does not give lower laws the power of *life and death* over decision types. I have already (I think unsucessfully) tried pointing out the difference between *restricting* and *prohibiting*. The constitution specifically prohibits lower laws from restricting initiatives.

Does the current Code of Laws allow a method of decision other then Initaitive or Mandate? Would methods other then Initiative or Mandate be able to be enforced?

The constitution allows for initiatives, referendums, mandates, opinion polls and recalls. The code of laws cannot take away what the constitution grants. The code of laws could define more decision types to fit within the framework already laid out in the constitution.

What measures could a citizen take to prevent a Mandate from being carried out while either Initiative discussion or actual polling is under way?

Citizens would have to lobby the official or officials who have the authority to carry out the action or actions in question. There is no mechanism in place for the judiciary to step into in such cases. I don't believe there ever has been such a mechanism in the demogames. I have suggested from time to time that the judiciary be allowed to oder *stays* or *injunctions* but the idea never went anywhere. In order to be effective the judiciary would have to be empowered to post instructions in the instruction thread. Another thing that could be done is to amend the constitution or add a lower law. A law saying mandates must be put on hold if there is an outstanding initiative poll on the same subject seems (on the face of it) to be constitutional. It also seems to be a proper and valid use of a lower law clarifying and restricting a decision type.

Legal disclaimer: The above are my personal opinions and should not be considered an official judicial review.

 

[DaveShack]

Is there any discussion on JR4 regarding multiple positions?

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.

 

[DaveShack]

My reply is also opinion outside any judicial review.

The constitution does not require any decisions be made at all. IMHO (which is not necessarily shared by my brethren on the bench) the constitution does not give lower laws the power of *life and death* over decision types. I have already (I think unsucessfully) tried pointing out the difference between *restricting* and *prohibiting*. The constitution specifically prohibits lower laws from restricting initiatives.

Your point on restricting vs prohibiting was understood, we just disagreed on how a specific instance should be evaluated. I think the CoL can restrict initiatives, by requiring a process to be followed for example. There are some definition problems in the Constitution, and I'm starting to remember the distinctions.

Initiative is mostly about in-game decisions. The previous case was about recalls, which are out of game decisions. What I meant to say was that initiative must always be allowed for in-game decisions -- but now we have to live with interpreting that until a concensus is reached on changing it.

The constitution allows for initiatives, referendums, mandates, opinion polls and recalls. The code of laws cannot take away what the constitution grants. The code of laws could define more decision types to fit within the framework already laid out in the constitution.

Or said another way, if the CoL doesn't say anything about a subject, then the Constitution clearly remains in effect.

Citizens would have to lobby the official or officials who have the authority to carry out the action or actions in question.

Some might argue that merely having a discussion, anywhere, on a topic within a official's responsibility represents constituency, which by the definition in the Constitution overrules mandate. An official who completely ignores public comments in any form risks being subjected to a citizen's complaint.

Edited: added "completely".

 

[ravensfire]

von Clauswitz,

I agree with my fellow justice, donsig, on your questions. I've got a few thoughts to add that might also help. I'm not sure, however, if you intend these questions to be requests for a Judicial Review on them. I'm taking them, as I think donsig did, to be more general questions. If you are looking for a JR on them, please let us know!

So you know, only a ruling on a JR actually has any standing for future interpretations - my response here is my personal viewpoint, nothing else.

Does the current Code of Laws allow a method of decision other then Initaitive or Mandate? Would methods other then Initiative or Mandate be able to be enforced?

As Judge Advocate donsig points out, the Constitution defines those decision types, so they exist. If you look at those decision types, they realistically are the core types - it would be enormously difficult to eliminate those types. By law, those types are recognized, and can be enforced.

What measures could a citizen take to prevent a Mandate from being carried out while either Initiative discussion or actual polling is under way?

To be blunt, there isn't one, and there probably shouldn't be a blanket prohibition.

Let's say you're a Governor, and it's a two days before the next game session. You were elected just a week ago on a platform of building X in the province. Your opponent objects, and starts a discussion on the matter.

There's now a discussion that's going with active debate on both sides, but an apparent 60% majority opposed to X in the discussion. That's far from a constituency. Should an active discussion be able to block a mandate? If so, what would you, as the Governor, need to do here?

Now it's a day before the next session. Same scenario, except an Initiative poll just went up about the matter. Early results are mixed, but there's that 60% majority against your wishes. The poll, however, won't close for 3 days - 2 days after the next game session. Again, as the Governor, what would you do? The poll hasn't closed, so it can't be called official. It's still early, and results will change often (see the Restart poll - the early push was firmly No, it's now much closer).

I think that leaders should be aware of ongoing discussions and polls, but they can only base their decisions on completed decisions.

-- Ravensfire, Citizen

 

[donsig]

My reply is also opinion outside any judicial review.
Or said another way, if the CoL doesn't say anything about a subject, then the Constitution clearly remains in effect.

Well, the point I've been trying to make is the constitution clearly remains in effect no matter what is said in the code of laws. If there is a conflict between what is writtenin the CoL and what is written in the constitution then what is written in the CoL is disregarded in favor of what is written in the constitution.

There are some definition problems in the Constitution, and I'm starting to remember the distinctions.

We can only go by what is actually written.

 

[ravensfire]

My JR4 ruling will be up in a few hours - last chance for comments!

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[Chieftess]

I have a question about the governorships...

1 - In the elections, it says, "Governor of Boaring Wallow", but in the Constitution, it says governors control cities or states (I prefer provinces, so I'll use that term).

2 - Provincial boundries. Yep, the age old question, and I haven't seen it mentioned in the constitution. Can we get something on that? Civ4 does have fewer cities than Civ3 in a normal game (atleast 3 times less).

 

[Swissempire]

Cheiftess, to my knowledge, if three(or more) cities become a state, there is a stae govna who may appoint city mayors, and the provincal boundaries would be the combine city borders

 

[ravensfire]

von_Clausewitz came before the court with the following 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?

Citizen comments
None

Relevant Law

Constitution: None

Code of Laws:
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.

Analysis
As a note, all Ministers referenced in the Code of laws are members of the Cabinet. In addition, the Code of Laws clearly states that "The Cabinet Officials will be any office that is not included as part of the Triumvirate, the Judiciary, a Gubernatorial office or the Designated Player." (CoL 1.B.I.IB).

This very easily answers the question presented. In our Code of Laws, the only officials that appear to have Deputies are the members of the Cabinet and Governors. Each position category has a different method to fill the vacancy.

To the question at hand, 8.B.III clearly answers this "... or a Deputy position."

The second part of the questions is also answered in this section. 8.B.II states "A member of the Cabinet may hold one other Cabinet office ..."

Ruling
Yes, a member of the Cabinet may serve as the Deputy for another Cabinet level office.

Yes, a citizen may hold two Cabinet level positions simultaneously.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[DaveShack]

Questions:

1. can a Minister level official hold a deputy position for another Minister?
2. 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 (thanks to Ravensfire)

Constitution: None

Code of Laws:
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.

Ruling

As to question 1, yes, a cabinet official may be a deputy of another cabinet office.

As to question 2, yes, a citizen may hold two cabinet offices.

 

[DaveShack]

I have a question about the governorships...

1 - In the elections, it says, "Governor of Boaring Wallow", but in the Constitution, it says governors control cities or states (I prefer provinces, so I'll use that term).

2 - Provincial boundries. Yep, the age old question, and I haven't seen it mentioned in the constitution. Can we get something on that? Civ4 does have fewer cities than Civ3 in a normal game (atleast 3 times less).

The relevant law is CoL Section 2:

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.​

IC. States

1. No states may be created until our Civilization owns at least five cites.
2. A minimum of 3 cities must exist in a proposed state at the time of its creation.
3. The Creation of a state requires a 6/10 (60%) majority of both the Citizens Assembly and the Governors Council.​

II. States

IIA. States are groups of cities run by a single Governor.
IIB. Cities within states do not have their own Governor.

1. Governors of States may designate a civil government led by a Mayor in cities under their control.

A. Mayors may be appointed or elected in a special election depending on the wish of the Governor of the State. The way of choosing Mayors does not need to be the same for all Cities in a given State.​

2. A Governor of a State chooses how many cities if any will have Mayors in a given term.​

IIC. The Capital of [Name of our Nation Here] will never be a part of a state.
​

I don't see a question being asked in #1 -- yes, the election thread says Governor of Boaring Wallow, and the CoL does say governors control cities or states.

On question #2, on initial review, there does not appear to be any law which specifies who is responsible for Provincial (State) borders. CoL 2.A.IC.3 says "The Creation of a state requires a 6/10 (60%) majority of both the Citizens Assembly and the Governors Council." but does not give responsibility for leading that effort. On the surface this would seem to imply that CoL Section 1.B.IIA.5 takes effect giving the responsibility to the President "The President has all powers not expressly given to another official and not retained by the Citizens Assembly."

If this is a satisfactory answer to my fellow justices and to Chieftess as the originator, then we can avoid needing a formal JR on this question.

​

 

[donsig]

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?

Short answers: Yes, a Minister level official can hold a deputy position for another minister, and yes, a minister who is also a deputy for another minister can retain his or her original ministry upon advancement.

Legal reasoning:

The constitution in mute on this entire issue so we must turn to the Code of Laws for our answer.

Sections 1.B.I.IB and 1.B.III.IIIA list Cabinet Officials, many with the specific title of Minister therefore a *minister level official* is the same as a *Cabinet Official*.

Section 3.B.I.IB provides for cabinet members to have deputies.

Section 8.B.II specifically says A member of the Cabinet may hold one other Cabinet office, Gubernatorial office or a Deputy position. This clearly states that a minister level official can hold one deputy position or another cabinet position. Since 8.A.I prohibits citizens from running in more than one election per cycle, it is a reasonable assumption that 8.B.II was written specifically to allow a minister who is also a deputy for another minister to retain the original ministry if promoted to a second ministry.

Therefore the answer is yes a minster can be a deputy for another minister and yes a deputy promoted to a ministerial level office can retain another ministry position.

donsig
Judge Advocate

 

[DaveShack]

The court has ruled unanimously on the following questions for C4DG1JR4.

Ruling

As to question 1, yes, a cabinet official may be a deputy of another cabinet office.

As to question 2, yes, a citizen may hold two cabinet offices.