Term 1 - Nominations for the Judge Advocate of the Court

[Alphawolf]

The Judge Advocate is part of the Judicial Branch along with the Chief Justice and Public Defender, and is tasked with upholding, clarifying and reviewing all changes to the Constitution and its supporting laws through Judicial Reviews, and upholding the rights of all citizens through Investigations. The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.

Please submit nominations for the Judge Advocate of the Court in this thread and Accept or Decline any nominations you may receive. Self nominations are allowed. Citizens may only run for one elected position.

Nominations will close and elections open 00:00 GMT on the December 29 (7PM EST/6PM CST December 28).

-the Wolf

 

[donsig]

I nominate donsig and accept on my behalf.

 

[Chieftess]

I'll nth donsig on behalf of his own PI. (variation of an old demogame joke)

 

[mhcarver]

I haven't been very active lately, but I hope to be and since I'm waiting to get a civ 4 capable computer, I self nominate and accept!

 

[BCLG100]

I'll nth donsig on behalf of his own PI. (variation of an old demogame joke)

Has he been PI'd since i left? or is this still referring to DG1 or 2 i cant remember which one.

 

[mhcarver]

are there any questions for the candidates? I'll be posting a platform shortly

-mhcarver
candidate

 

[DaveShack]

Question for candidates:

When ruling on Judicial Reviews are you most likely to be lenient and rule in a way which promotes a more fun experience, or strict and rule according to the words of the law with less emphasis on context? Put another way, do you leave room for interpreting the author's intent which would allow a mistake in the text of the law to be interpreted the way it is meant to be, or do you limit your approach to what it actually does say?

 

[RoboPig]

what does the judge advocate do?

 

[mhcarver]

do you leave room for interpreting the author's intent which would allow a mistake in the text of the law to be interpreted the way it is meant to be, or do you limit your approach to what it actually does say?

I am willing to interpret a law the way it is meant to be if it can be proven that it was widely understood by the people and author to mean something that was intended. This means that the author must have clearly stated what they intended the law to do and it must have been recognized by citizens in the debate, one sentence in a 10 paragraph essay isn't enough if their wasn't a general understanding amongthe people on what the intent of the law was

what does the judge advocate do?

for that I refer you to the first post of the thread


any other questions?
-Mhcarver
Candidate

 

[RoboPig]

for that I refer you to the first post of the thread

that only explains the judiciary

 

[donsig]

what does the judge advocate do?

Since the ratified constitution isn't posted yet that difficult to explain.

In previous Civ III demogames the Judge Advocate was sorta kinda similar to a District Attorney / Prosecutor in investigations and as far as judicial reviews was just another justice.

 

[Alphawolf]

that only explains the judiciary

That would be my oversight sorry. The Judge Advocate is the prosecutor.

-the Wolf

 

[RoboPig]

That would be my oversight sorry. The Judge Advocate is the prosecutor.

-the Wolf

thanks. so the CJ is the decision maker then right? just clearing this up 'cause in past DG's i thought they were all the same

 

[Alphawolf]

They all help with decisions, but the Judge Advocate is the prosecutor, and the Public Defender is the defender if and when an actual trial happens. But this could change as the Judiciary is tasked with defining themselves in the first term.

-the Wolf

 

[mhcarver]

the chief justice does have the most power because in the past he/she is the only one who has the power to submit court procedures for ratification, though this power has been weakened by past courts, it used to be that the chief justice had unchecked powers over what could and couldn't come before the court, also though not specifically writen, the chief justice could expand the scope of a judicial revew by adding clarification, and some could interpret the fact that since the past few demogames the CJ has written the majority opinion to mean that the CJ also has a say in the scope of the rulings.
-any more questions?

 

[donsig]

Question for candidates:

When ruling on Judicial Reviews are you most likely to be lenient and rule in a way which promotes a more fun experience, or strict and rule according to the words of the law with less emphasis on context? Put another way, do you leave room for interpreting the author's intent which would allow a mistake in the text of the law to be interpreted the way it is meant to be, or do you limit your approach to what it actually does say?

In formal legal matters (such as those that would come before the demogame's judiciary) I feel it is very important to base decisions upon what is actually written. Room for including *author's intent* should be kept to a minimum otherwise there is the risk that the judiciary will become the legislators. It is the judiciary's job to interpret what the legislators said and not what they meant to say.

Context, on the other hand, is extremely important to consider. First and foremost the judiciary has to consider which parts of the law (if any) pertain to a given situation. Many times there is more than one section of the constitution or lower laws that can be applied to the given question. I would not be so strict as to base my decisions solely on narrow pieces of the law cited by those who come before the court. If another section of the law bears on the question being reviewed I feel it is proper and good for justices to include those sections in decisions.

To sum up, I do not think it is within the duties of the judiciary to include a *fun factor* in judicial decisions (nor do I think it is the judiciary who should decide what is fun and what isn't). I also do not think it is proper for the judiciary to decide certain parts of our laws as written are erroneous. I do think the judiciary should hand down decisions consistent with the law as it is written. I also think justices should take a wholistic view of our constitution and laws, rather than narrowly focusing on a specific clause, when rendering decisions.

 

[Alphawolf]

Nominations for Judge Advocate of the Court are now closed. Please continue any discussion in the Election Poll.

-the Wolf