Term 2 Judiciary - Clockwork Orange Court

[Provolution]

Honorable President Daveshack

Please be more specific on the matter of "Ivory Tower". As far as the Judiciary is concerned, we have no Ivory, and we are not in a position to develop the Statue of Zeus, and we have not discussed and polled it. All queries are therefore dismissed based on the fact that Ivory is not covered in by government actions or constitutions.
No Merit to Ivory.

 

[Black_Hole]

That was the article I was thinking of DS, however to remain unbiased I plan to not post/ update any JRs while in the Judiciary.

What is this ivory Provoultion?!?

 

[Black_Hole]

I concur with Ashburnham that a law must be posted to be considered valid. However DaveShack has done so.

I am also against chaning the judicial procedures on this, Ashburnham pretty muchly summed it up, having people cite the article makes them read the constitution before asking it to be interpereted.

 

[MOTH]

First a few points of order:
1. Urgent (and almost urgent): Article Y part 3 states that polls on changing the constitution must be open for at least 96 hours. The 2 current polls will each only be open for 72 hours. Can you please request that a Mod change the end dates on these two polls?
This one closes in about 3 hours and is urgent: Changes to articles D and E
This one closes in about 2.5 days and is less urgent: Strider's Proposal
2. The Judicial Code states that the CJ is responsible for posting the active Census at the beginning of the term. I can not find any post indicating a census. Can one please be posted?
3. There are 3 current polls that have not made it to the constitution or CoL thread. I note that Black Hole has requested in the needed things thread that the frist 2 should be changed. Please add the third as well. I also suggest that Black Hole post the actual text that should be inserted and reletter instead of using X and Y: CoL Y, Article X and Y, and Addition of A.1.A CoL

 

[GenMarshall]

{snip} {snip}

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Saying whether someone is being scrutinized, harrassed, or humiliated is purely from point of view - it changes for everyone. I can't see how a law can protect voters from scrutiny unless all polls are made private. You're entitled to vote however you want, and you should be proud you voted that way. Don't let others change your instincts on voting.

That's my view on things...

 

[Strider]

I have no idea where to look for in the consitution that gives me the right to vote without being screutenized (spelling) or harassed. I hope the judicary can help me on this one. If there are none in existance, I wish that the law could be created to protect voters the right to vote without being screutenized (spelling?), Harrassed, or humiliated.

Thanks,
CivGeneral

That's part of a moderators duties, and he's been reported already. Usually harrassment earns a ban.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

<snip> ...

 

[DaveShack]

Officially, CG was conclusion jumping. I did not name anyone, and still have not named anyone, and do not plan to name anyone.

 

[Black_Hole]

That law CG, would be contradictory of itself. Article A says all citizens have the right to freedom of speech(of course the moderators are here to enforce forum rules). So if citizen b scrutinizes citizen a for his vote, it is within the same right that allows citizen a to stand up for what he wants.

 

[Strider]

That law CG, would be contradictory of itself. Article A says all citizens have the right to freedom of speech(of course the moderators are here to enforce forum rules). So if citizen b scrutinizes citizen a for his vote, it is within the same right that allows citizen a to stand up for what he wants.

Nope, as citizen A is the one violating citizen B's rights, then citizen A loses all of his rights.

 

[Black_Hole]

Nope, as citizen A is the one violating citizen B's rights, then citizen A loses all of his rights.

I see, our citizens lose their rights if their rights can be used to question others...
also there is nothing saying that citizen a will lose all of thier rights, thats in the us constitution but not demogame

 

[Strider]

I see, our citizens lose their rights if their rights can be used to question others...
also there is nothing saying that citizen a will lose all of thier rights, thats in the us constitution but not demogame

It's basic Judiciary standards in almost all governments/organizations/etc. While citizen B does not lose all of his rights, he does lose several.

 

[Black_Hole]

unwritten laws should not be above written ones, that is also a common judicial standard

 

[Strider]

unwritten laws should not be above written ones, that is also a common judicial standard

Okay, so then you CC Daveshack for disobeying CG's rights, and then you CC yourself. Very logical...

 

[Black_Hole]

Okay, so then you CC Daveshack for disobeying CG's rights, and then you CC yourself. Very logical...

well I didnt say that, and why are we naming names? DaveShack never said anyone in particular...
I am saying they both have rights to vote how they want and scrutinize other for voting. If I wasn't a judiciary member I would CC myself for disobeying article (unwritten), however I must uphold my promise as a judiciary member not to start JRs or CCs

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Sorry gang, but DaveShack was talking about me. You see, I originally voted for the Traditional Proposal way back when but "flip-flopped" to the Alternative structure for the poll in question. It was his way of respectfully responding to my questionable comments about off-topic matters in another thread.

I know that Dave meant no harm in this, as I deserved much more than this. Therefore I do not wish to press charges. Please consider this matter closed.

CG, you brought this one on yourself, dude. The articles in Camelot Times were puzzling at best, and I can see why you may have been confused by Dave's statements. Get over yourself.

 

[GenMarshall]

CG, you brought this one on yourself, dude. The articles in Camelot Times were puzzling at best, and I can see why you may have been confused by Dave's statements. Get over yourself.

I should have not jumped to conclusions and just asked him in a private manner . If anyone needs me, Ill be in my office feeling guilty about bringing this onto myself.

 

[DaveShack]

I'm confused, what is the status of the JR for my 2nd amendment, dealing with the Commerce Director position? I had hoped to have the poll opened by now with the understanding that there is a 3rd amendment to come which doesn't need to be done before the elections, dealing with the text editing changes which were requested.

 

[eyrei]

I can't believe I got two reported posts over this...