Term 3 Judiciary

[Provolution]

Put up the election then. DZ managed to get in within time of closure. A fair election for FA would be a good way to go, and we need some arguments back and forth to make this
Demogame good. I also do expect some arguments on Doctrine.

 

[GenMarshall]

I plan to speek with Cheftess in this matter (I did talked with her early this morning but I had to end a bit short since she has to head for work), If things are at my fault on the timing of the closing of the elections (Which should be 8:00pm EDT traditionaly), then eather CT and I will open up a poll and I admit my mistakes and apologise to DZ. Like my stepfather always said "We are all not machines, were all humans".

 

[gert-janl]

Donovan Zoi has requested a Judicial Review concerning the upcoming elections. He was said to be one minute late, and hence the Foreign Advisor position went unconstested. He wants the court to answer the following question:

Can a nomination be considered accepted so long as it is posted before the commencement of the General Election?

The Court recognises the need for a fast ruling concerning this pressing issue. Therefore this Judicial Review will be accepted and marked as PRIORITY-DG5JR25.

I urge my fellow colleagues to post a ruling as soon as possible.

 

[gert-janl]

CJ's Ruling PRIORITY-DG5JR25

Having considered the current legislation I can conclude from Constitution article H

...nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
 commencement of the general election

that one can accept a nomination untill the election are officially started.
Currently we don't have a law providing any guidance when to start the elections. Hence it is the responsibility of the Election Office to start the elecitons on the time they think it is the best.

In this current case the Election Office closed the nomination thread for Foreign Advisor at October 27th, 0.05 GMT. All nominations before that closure should be considered legal. So DZs acceptance, posted on October 27th 0.01 GMT will be considered legal, according to the Constitution.

 

[ravensfire]

Comment on DG5JR25

The Election Office has been rather lax in it's duties this entire DG. There has been minimal communication, minimal responsiveness and no guidelines posted. We have seen flat-out wrong descriptions, no control, and no willingness to help the citizens.

Once again, the EO has caused problems by it's own ineptness. I urge the Court to correct this matter, by forcing the EO to do what's right, since they can't determine what do to on their own.

Perhaps it is time to legislate the Election Office. Volunteer offices are wonderful ideas, and should be encouraged. When they interact with the game, the performance of those offices should be evaluated and measured. Should they be found wanting, structure and oversight must be put into place.

Let me ask a simple question to all citizens - where would a new citizen find how elections are conducted, when they are scheduled (dates AND times) and when the future elections are? Please - include a link to the post detailing that information. The three obvious places - Constitution, FAQ and EO thread are strangely silent on that.

This is our ELECTIONS we're talking about. Good grief - we're making FLORIDA look organized and prepared!

-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

Ravensfire

100 % Agreed

Many Americans, also in the DG, seems to consider any democratic proceeding a lawsuit of two sides, not a democratic system with two or more options. They place candidates to watch the ballots, close threads and make value assessments with their political competitors. Should not we have a citizen NOT running for an election term to actually run the election? We should also have clear cut rules for last minute acceptances, presenting the deadlines WITHIN the Nomination Threads and Polls.
I am sick and tired of dirty business, and we need clear cut rules to squeeze the acting maneuvering space of the more sordid political animals.

 

[gert-janl]

I completely agree with you. Fortunately the Election Office started a reform discussion here.

We can solve the problems by contributing to this thread!

 

[ravensfire]

I completely agree with you. Fortunately the Election Office started a reform discussion here.

We can solve the problems by contributing to this thread!

Oh my word - I'm in shock! The EO is actually TRYING to fix the problem?

Will wonders never cease ...

-- Ravensfire

 

[mhcarver]

since this is a priority case my rulling will be brief and bulleted

-currently there are no laws in the constitution of COL about the election cycle
-the election office was late posting nominations threads
-One cannot ignore the conflict of interest by Civgeneral who prevented a possible opponent from running.
-I agree with the Chief-Justice's interpretation of the law and in the interests of Democracy in our nation I rule that Donovan Zoi's nomination is to be considered legal furthermore I direct the Elections office to open up an election thread for the election of foreign advisor with the candidates being Civgeneral and Donovan Zoi. Though the courts ruling will not be official until the public defender has ruled one way or another I encourage the thread be opened early since the two returning members for the term 4 court have issued concurring rulings and to make sure that there is a minister a the beggining of term 4 .

-Office of the Judge Advocate

 

[Provolution]

However, if the Justices are in doubt about the election system, they are welcome to play a social game over it in relaxing environments in Kagemusha. Or we can arrange a revolver duel at High Noon, or we have a local Saloon Court there to handle the matter.
Kagemusha is the Camp X Ray Guantanamo of Japanatica, outside the normal legislation. ( Just joking to those anal types who takes everything seriously, disclaimer).

 

[Strider]

May I point out to the Judiciary that the election office made the first post concerning the end of nominations at 6:57 p.m. (My time). Donovan_Zoi made his acceptance at 7:01 p.m.

As all nominations closed at 6:57 p.m. DZ missed the mark by 4 minutes. CivGeneral is not a moderator, and as such can not close threads.

I suggest the Judiciary starts researching there case before making a ruling.

As such, I request a Judicial Review over DG5JR25.

 

[gert-janl]

Although the first nomination thread was closed at 23.57 GMT, the FA nomination thread was closed at 0.05 GMT. With no laws in place about time limits of nomination threads the Court believes that a judicial review over the ruling of PRIORITY DG5JR25 does not have merit.

 

[gert-janl]

A majority of the Judiciary ruled in PRIORITY DG5JR25 that Donovan Zoi's nomination of 0.01 GMT has to be considered legal, since there are no laws in place concerning time limits.
Therefore the Court will reopen elections for the Foreign Affairs position.

 

[Strider]

Although the first nomination thread was closed at 23.57 GMT, the FA nomination thread was closed at 0.05 GMT. With no laws in place about time limits of nomination threads the Court believes that a judicial review over the ruling of PRIORITY DG5JR25 does not have merit.

Thank you for this honor then.

Article F. The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public
Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices
are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting
laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed
by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional
responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the
Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as council to an
accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

The Judiciary is tasked with only upholding the Constitution and it's supporting laws. As such, the Judicial Branch may not interpret the Constitution. That power laws with the citizens.

As your saying that the Tradition of all nominations closing at the same time is not within the laws of the constitution, I must point out that the act of Judicial Reviews is only tradition and as such, you just said that what you said doesn't mean ****.

The Judicial Reviews, or better yet ALL Judicial Reviews can not be accepted as law. It is not within the laws of our constitution, and it does not define them. From what I've seen, Judicial Review isn't even mentioned in our laws.

 

[gert-janl]

Strider, what you are saying here is incorrect.

The Constitution demands from the CJ to uphold the Constitution and have the responsibility to organise and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.

In order to do this legally, the Judiciary adopted its own procedures, which specifies how to uphold the Constitution. And this can be done or by Judicial Reviews, or by Citizen Complaints. Hence a Judicial Review can never be seen as only a tradition as it is legally backed by the Court Procedures.

Upholding the Constitution does also mean that citizens can approach the Judiciary to ask for clarification. If every citizen interpreted the Constitution on its own way, there would be chaos. Therefore the Judiciary upholds the constitution by clarifying/reviewing the law for the citizens.

 

[Strider]

Strider, what you are saying here is incorrect.

The Constitution demands from the CJ to uphold the Constitution and have the responsibility to organise and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.

In order to do this legally, the Judiciary adopted its own procedures, which specifies how to uphold the Constitution. And this can be done or by Judicial Reviews, or by Citizen Complaints. Hence a Judicial Review can never be seen as only a tradition as it is legally backed by the Court Procedures.

Upholding the Constitution does also mean that citizens can approach the Judiciary to ask for clarification. If every citizen interpreted the Constitution on its own way, there would be chaos. Therefore the Judiciary upholds the constitution by clarifying/reviewing the law for the citizens.

No, what I'm saying is correct. The Constitution demands only that you uphold, not interpret the Constitution. Your using a power that you do not have to justify giving yourself power. You CAN NOT say what the constitution means, the only say you have in our laws is wether or not a proposed amendment defies the constitution. That is the ONLY thing you can do.

Your "Court Precedures" wrongly steals power from the people. Judicial Reviews are illegal, and if it wasn't for Citizen Complaints being completely illegal also, I'd have to launch one against you.

Our Constitution only allows you to punish someone for breaking the laws of our constitution, it does not justify you with deciding what it means. That power comfortable sleeps with the people. Your "Court Precedures," not only defy the constitution, but I would atleast be content if you had polled them.

You did neither, exercising a power you do not have.

You said above, that sense it was not in the constitution, that it was illegal. Yet, can the Election Office not do the same thing as your "Court Precedures?" The Election Office can not set up "Procedures" to run the nominations/elections, yet the Judiciary can?

 

[Black_Hole]

No, what I'm saying is correct. The Constitution demands only that you uphold, not interpret the Constitution. Your using a power that you do not have to justify giving yourself power. You CAN NOT say what the constitution means, the only say you have in our laws is wether or not a proposed amendment defies the constitution. That is the ONLY thing you can do.

Your "Court Precedures" wrongly steals power from the people. Judicial Reviews are illegal, and if it wasn't for Citizen Complaints being completely illegal also, I'd have to launch one against you.

Our Constitution only allows you to punish someone for breaking the laws of our constitution, it does not justify you with deciding what it means. That power comfortable sleeps with the people. Your "Court Precedures," not only defy the constitution, but I would atleast be content if you had polled them.

You did neither, exercising a power you do not have.

You said above, that sense it was not in the constitution, that it was illegal. Yet, can the Election Office not do the same thing as your "Court Precedures?" The Election Office can not set up "Procedures" to run the nominations/elections, yet the Judiciary can?

Strider why the heck are you bring this up now? These court procedures have been here all game, and NOW you are calling them illegal? This is really sounding like you have something against DZ. I also cant see why you would CC gert-janl, he has broken no law.

These three justices
are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting
laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed
by law.

By law means that the judiciary can do what it wants(since law can be the court procedures) to uphold the constituion.
A constitution cant be upheld if citzens cant understand it, thus the need for JRs. Plus CCs are plain and simple in the constituion in multiple places(Article A and F)

 

[Strider]

Strider why the heck are you bring this up now? These court procedures have been here all game, and NOW you are calling them illegal? This is really sounding like you have something against DZ. I also cant see why you would CC gert-janl, he has broken no law.

I've known the court precedures have been here all game, I actually suggested a few changes to them. However, that does change anything. They are still illegal, and incase you didn't notice I hate Donovan_Zoi with a passion, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual. However, I was willing to let it drop, he was not. If it's a fight he wants, then I will no longer sit back and let him beat on me. I'm simply taking the fight to him, as he's been doing to me most of this game.

By law means that the judiciary can do what it wants(since law can be the court procedures) to uphold the constituion.
A constitution cant be upheld if citzens cant understand it, thus the need for JRs. Plus CCs are plain and simple in the constituion in multiple places(Article A and F)

As I pointed out, the Judiciary just ruled that if it is not in the Constitution, then it is illegal. I pointed out that there "Judicial Precedures" are not inside of the Constitution, and as such illegal. That is problem that should've been solved during the creation. It's not my problem that the people who made it, completely ****ed it up.

The Citizen Complaint process, however, is not listed inside of the Constitution.

I have no problem with the Judicial Precedures, however, I do have a problem with the Judiciary declaring that one thing is right for them, yet the same thing is wrong for someone else.

 

[mhcarver]

Umm strider when did the court rule that anything about something not being in the constitution was illegal? I looked in past reviews and can't find anything and this ruling simply said an election should be held. In my mind the courts were created without much description in the constitution in order to let them operate as they saw fit. Without the courts there would by widespread confusion, ex: when the first appointment of new Governors began it took a judicial review to interpret their powers, if the court had not been their then nobody would have known what the governors could do. We need a body to interpret the law. I personally believe that the court was made with the assumption that it would be able to regulate law. Part of upholding the constitution is interpreting the law and punishing those who violate it . And finally was anyone hurt by having an election? I mean this is a game of democracy, in a sense the will of the people is the will of god. oh and BTW you are propably going to flame and post some mean rebuttal but hey what can I do about it?

 

[Strider]

Umm strider when did the court rule that anything about something not being in the constitution was illegal? I looked in past reviews and can't find anything and this ruling simply said an election should be held. In my mind the courts were created without much description in the constitution in order to let them operate as they saw fit. Without the courts there would by widespread confusion, ex: when the first appointment of new Governors began it took a judicial review to interpret their powers, if the court had not been their then nobody would have known what the governors could do. We need a body to interpret the law. I personally believe that the court was made with the assumption that it would be able to regulate law. Part of upholding the constitution is interpreting the law and punishing those who violate it . And finally was anyone hurt by having an election? I mean this is a game of democracy, in a sense the will of the people is the will of god. oh and BTW you are propably going to flame and post some mean rebuttal but hey what can I do about it?

He ruling stated "there is nothing in the constitution about the election cycle." I pointed out that there is also nothing in the constitution about the Judicial Cycle. As such, he ruled that sense it is not inside of the constitution, it is illegal. I merely pointed out, that his power over ruling, is not inside of the constitution, and as such, is also illegal.