1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Term 2 Judiciary - The Court at the Big Rock

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Demo Game II: Offices' started by ravensfire, Apr 2, 2007.

  1. Methos

    Methos HoF Quattromaster Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    13,100
    Location:
    Missouri
    Current instructions are in place to rename Gold+Cows as City #1.

    This needs to be looked into, as I may have to adjust my instructions pending your findings and rename FH.

    In order to follow along with current legal proceedings if NotA's polling name is not completed, I will also by law have to rename our capital too.
     
  2. Falcon02

    Falcon02 General

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,100
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    If I'm not mistaken our Second city (Falcon's Haven) was founded after the City #1, #2,... standard was passed :blush:

    At the time I saw no harm in it, as the City #1, etc. naming standard seemed like a very minor part of the initiative. The important thing, as I saw it was the nomination and polling process to determine the final name. I was also getting frustrated with the naming process for the Capital and didn't want to have a generic stand in for the next month.

    In retrospec I do recognize one negative aspect to using a real name (particularly one that was intended for nomination) as a replacement for the number system, aside from deviating from specifics of the letter of the law.

    Using a name that was to nominated as a placeholder, it can bias some people to use that name just for consistancy sake, and not because it's the name they like best... :sad:

    And for that fact, and the bit of controversy stired by such a deviation from protocol, I apologize for this breach of protocol during my last turnchat.
     
  3. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Thanks!

    That city, as Falcon02 noted, was founded after the naming law passed, so if you would also rename it to a generic placeholder, it would be appreciated.

    Probably a good idea as well, just to prevent a possible JR.

    Thank you for your attention to this, Chieftain Methos!

    -- Ravensfire
     
  4. Lockesdonkey

    Lockesdonkey Liberal Jihadist

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,403
    Location:
    Why do you care?
    I'm back, but I recuse myself from any reviews initiated during my absence on account of incompetence--it will be impossible for me to catch up properly.
     
  5. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    Welcome back to the Bench! I wouldn't worry about anything - donsig performed admirably during your absence, and the subjects in question were more-or-less non-controversial.
     
  6. Black_Hole

    Black_Hole Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,424
    Request for Judicial Review
    People of the court, I have come forth with a possible conflict in the law.

    The Election Act of 4000 BC appears to be in conflict with the constitution.
    The act states:
    However, Article B of the Constitution states, in part:
    For example, if I am elected Chieftain two terms in a row, according to the election act, I cannot be elected to the office of Chieftain again. But Article B of the constitution states I am guaranteed the right to be eligible for public office.

    I am aware this has been requested as a judicial review in previous demo games, however the conflict has never been removed from our laws.
     
  7. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    Since I'm not ready to rule of this just let, let's start off with some discussion.

    My initial reaction is that no, there is no conflict. Even though I am speaking as a government official who is about to be term-limited out of office, I think it's a reasonable restriction on elections to limit the power of incumbency. On top of that, if the candidate has been successful enough to win two consecutive terms, I should think that the citizens would be inclined to elect him again to another office, anyway.
     
  8. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    It has been requested, and was reviewed in past DG. It was determined NOT to be a conflict.

    As with Octavian, my initial reaction is that there is no conflict. In fact, my reaction was "Oh no. HOW many times do we have to go over this?!?" :crazyeye:

    However, since we haven't actually had a decent review in a while, there's a week left in the term and with new candidates running for various Judicial offices, I find this request has merit, and will be docketed. Discussion to be held in the Judiciary thread.

    DOCKETED - C4DG2JR8 - Do the Term Limits in the Election Act of 4000 BC conflict with Article B of the Constitution?

    -- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
     
  9. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    As both matters have been corrected to follow the legal process, C4DG2JR6 and C4DG2JR7 have been found to have no merit, as the matter has been resolved without court intervention.

    The Court thanks all citizens involved for their patience and willingness to do things the right way.

    -- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
     
  10. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Black_Hole has come before the court asking:
    This request for Judicial Review has been found to have merit, and has been docketed as C4DG2JR8.

    Relevant laws:
    From the Constitution:
    From the Election Act of 4000 BC
    Question for the Court to answer:
    1) Do the Term Limits mentioned in Section 1 of the Election Act of 4000 BC violate Article A of the Constitution by contradicting Article B of the constitution?

    Discussion is to be held in the Judiciary thread. Justices are requested to be ready to rule by Saturday, April 28th. Rulings may be posted any time after 9:00 pm (CDT) on April 25th.

    -- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
     
  11. Black_Hole

    Black_Hole Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,424
    I agree that it is a reasonable restriction, however does that matter?
    I don't think it matters how well thought or poorly thought out an initiative is if it violates the constitution.
    I hope the justices rule on what the law says and not that the law makes sense.

    I understand the argument that some will make:
    "You can still run for other offices, so your right to be eligible to hold office isn't eliminated"
    And they would be correct, it is not eliminated, however I don't believe an initiative should have the power to restrict rights in the constitution.

    Take a hypothetical initiative:
    "Only leaders can post in the government forum". This would restrict the right to freedom of speech, but not eliminate that right since citizens could still post in other forums.
    My point being that initiatives should not be able to restrict constitution rights:
     
  12. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    As a friend of the Court and a member of the Bar Association, I would like to suggest the following analysis for C4DG2JR8.

    Constitution Article B.2.3, "The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office", should be interpreted to mean "The Right to be Eligible to hold some Public Office". A limitation on the number of consecutive terms an office can be held by a citizen does not generally limit the ability to hold some office. If this right were interpreted to prohibit any limitations on what offices a citizen can be eligible for, that interpretation would also require one citizen to be eligible to hold all offices at the same time.
     
  13. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    I do see the point that Black_Hole is trying to argue, and certainly any attempt to restrict a citizen's rights should be carefully considered. However, I simply do not feel it appropriate, especially in this case, to take a strict reading of the Constitution into account. A to-the-letter interpretation, as DaveShack points out, has its own consequences.
     
  14. Lockesdonkey

    Lockesdonkey Liberal Jihadist

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,403
    Location:
    Why do you care?
    I concur with the Public Defender and Chief Justice, and rule that this has no merit.
     
  15. GenMarshall

    GenMarshall Night Elven Ghost Agent

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    43,498
    Location:
    New Suramar City, Vekta, United Terran Systems
    I hope no one minds that I comment since Octavian X did asked the future candidates to make a comment.

    On my interperatations of these two pieces of the law. Neather of them contradicts each other. A citizen has a right to be ellegable to hold some public office is one school of thought that I have in mind when interpreting this law. The second is the definition of "consecutive" which by definition is defined as "Following, in succession, without interruption". However it does not bar a citizen who served two terms in one office to seek another.
     
  16. Black_Hole

    Black_Hole Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,424
    Neither the Public Defender nor the Chief Justice ruled that this has no merit. They simply said they didn't think there was a conflict, but the Chief Justice decided to rule on this case anyway.
     
  17. Black_Hole

    Black_Hole Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,424
    I don't believe we should be adding words into the constitution to make our lives easier. The people voted for the language in the constitution, not for that language including an extra word ("some"). So I would like to request that the justices rule on what is actually present in the law.

    I also don't believe the justices should rule a specific way because the consequences of ruling according to the text would be undesirable.
    The thing is it does limit ones right to be eligible to hold office! It doesn't eliminate their right, but it limits it.
     
  18. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    English is a language which is full of implied words. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo. for an extreme example.

    The task the Court faces is determining whether this is a case where an implication is correctly part of the law, or if that is not the correct interpretation.

    Real Life courts face a similar dilemma when interpreting real laws. Take the (US) Fourth Amendment. What is "unreasonable search and seizure"? Take the First Amendment -- what does it mean to "establish a religion"?

    Courts must also weigh the impact of a restriction on an individual vs the benefit to society. It is quite reasonable, and very important, to consider the consequences of a ruling. There have been many previous decisions where the wider implications played a big part in the Court's deliberations. No need to reopen old wounds, so I'm not going to point one out, but it doesn't take much imagination to think of a decision where ruling the opposite way would have had huge consequences.

    It is quite reasonable to disagree with the Court's opinion. If you did, it wouldn't be the first time that's ever happened. ;) There are other avenues to get what you want if this one doesn't produce results. :)
     
  19. dutchfire

    dutchfire Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    14,106
    Location:
    -
  20. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Messed up, isn't it? This is what English majors do when they get bored ...

    -- Ravensfire
     

Share This Page