Term 3 Judiciary

[blackheart]

Your revered and illegal judges, I would like to ask if there is any current law governing polls. Specifically, if it is constitution for one poll to override several previous polls.

 

[blackheart]

And here's another question: what is the judiciary's exact job and where do we amend the constitution to enhance the judiciary's "legitimacy"?

 

[Nobody]

Good afternoon Chief Justice gert-janl and esteemed judges mhcarver and KCCrusader.

I have never asked for a judicial review before so I might get this wrong. But now I have decided that I must ask for one. The Question I am asking is "Are the doctrines made by Provolution law. They are a series of polls about military reform. they are TERM IV MSAV MILITARY REFORM BILL - 980 AD, Section 1B.,
TERM IV MSAV MILITARY REFORM BILL - 980 AD, Section 1C,
TERM IV MSAV MILITARY REFORM BILL - 980 AD, Section 1A,
TERM IV MSAV NAVAL DOCTRINE BILL 980 AD, Section 1B,Eastern Navy
TERM IV MSAV NAVAL DOCTRINE BILL 980 AD Section 1A,
TERM IV MSAV NAVAL DOCTRINE BILL 980 AD, Section 1C Privateer Flotilla. These threads are located in the polls sub-forum.

In the begging of the threads Provolution said they are advisory polls but in a recent thread (a poll on what to do if Iroquois attack) people were acting as if they were law, so I was wondering are they law. I properly set this request for a review out all wrong, oh well thanks.

Nobody

 

[Provolution]

LOL @ Nobody

I felt about coming with a personal attack, but I took it back. The main irritation is that you like to JR me, but provide no valuable inputs in debates, discussions, no plans come from your hands, but still you want to stop a producing hand.

why ?

 

[Civman2004]

Provo while I applaud your far-sightedness in determining policy, the above attack seems personal and unwarranted. I don't believe Nobody was attacking you, he was simply asking for clarification from the Judiciary, which is his right.

Aside from which - Koalas Kangaroos and boomerangs are from Australia, not New Zealand!

 

[Nobody]

The main irritation is that you like to JR me

I never JRed you just your dogma. I wish I had seen your insult, if it was half as harsh as it seems (dising the country to the north of mine) I am worried. so please send me you "personal attack" by PM so I can respond in kind, also the appropriate insults about new Zealanders are to do with sheep. If you need to know native New Zealand animals to make fun of some are the Kiwi, the Tuatara, the Kakapo.

 

[blackheart]

I don't think Nobody meant this as a personal attack, just as clarification.

 

[gert-janl]

Whatever nobody implied...The Court considers this just a question.

And Provolutions 'doctrines' can never be considered as law. To add a piece of law the proposer has to follow strict instructions as provided in the Constitution/Code of Laws.
Because of this I will consider your question not as a Judicial Review.
I think Provolution just tried to state his views and determine the will of the people, and gave it all very official names.

It cannot even be regarded as official policy since his Term will only start at November 1st, 0.00GMT.

 

[gert-janl]

Now blackheart...to come to your questions.

Can governors directly request that units stationed in their province to be upgraded or does this have to pass thru the MSAV/military ministry?

0
Governors have no authority concerning troops. All they can do is advise the military and domestic minister (who have the authority to decide about upgrades) about a possible need. But concerning troop upgrades they have just the right every citizen has. Since this is clearly stated in Article D & E of our Constitution I consider a Judicial Review without merit.

is there any current law governing polls

The Constitution has some things to say about polls. Article J says:

The will of the people will be determined through discussion and polls,
 formal or informal

I don't exactly know what you want to know, but this is basically what the Constitution says about polls. If you are referring to amendment polls, you can find clear procedures in either Constitution article I or Code of Laws article I.

what is the judiciary's exact job and where do we amend the constitution to enhance the judiciary's "legitimacy"?

First of all I need to say that I don't see why we should enhance the Judiciary's Legitimacy. It is competely legal according to our Constitution. To come to your first question; I would like to refer to article F of the Constitution. This is basically all you need.

 

[gert-janl]

Although I am happy with the interest of some of our citizens brought forward in regard to our Constitution, I would like to stress that the Judiciary is not a law-search engine. I suggest that you, before you ask the Judiciary a question about law, to take a look at the constitution. I didn't highlight it for nothing in the start post of my office.
Remember...never hesistate to contact the Judiciary, either by forum or PM (preferably forum, so everyone can benefit)! But most articles in the Constitution are so clear, that if you just take a quick look, you can conclude yourself what is implied, without needing to ask the Judiciary.

 

[blackheart]

Thank you for your help Chief Justice GJ and I took your advice and looked over the constitution, this in has lead me to raise more questions.

Article L. The constitution, laws and standards of Fanatika can never
be contrary to the rules and regulations of the
Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto any such
constitutional amendments, laws or standards.

First off, Article L of the constitution refers to a nonexistant country "Fanatika". I propose we declare this section void (we could always change the name back to Japanatica )

2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
keeping of the peace and the construction of wonders.

Second has to do with the Culture Minister's powers. It states that he/she is responsible for keeping of the peace, does this mean the constitutional power to declare peace with a nation we are currently at war with?

 

[mhcarver]

BH, you are not the first person to point this out(which makes it even more embarassing ) I am not sure wether it was GJ or Cyc but one of them said that changing something cosmetic does not require it to go through the process of an amendment. As for the part about the culture minister I have no idea what the frick that means but you can be sure that (in my mind at least I invite the CJ and public defender, current and elect to disagree if they see fit) the culture minister cannot construe any powers from that for reasons of common sense.

 

[Provolution]

Honorable Justice Gert Jani

I figure you did not notice, but I democratized my own decision-making space in how to conduct wars. And as long as the military is in total control of warfaring activities, we can write and poll as many doctrines as we want, as the Consitution has no Codex Bellorum in its custody. In fact, I expanded the lawmaking scope of Japanatica, where previous generals merely submitted their orders, we have developed doctrines for every conceivable situation with our neighbors. And you know Gert Jani, as long as I do not impede on the constitution, Military Law is military law within the scope of the decision-making activities of the MSAV already got in its posession. Nobody on the far right hawk side and Donsig and Blackheart on the other, had no notion on what doctrines meant until they were posted. Now, we have formed local military districts, army and navy groups as well a miltary staff, and do not expect any institution intervene in our internal organization as long as we act within the Constitution and Code of Laws. The Doctrinal framework is a military plan for building up our force, and is a de facto military development plan and doctrine. If the Chief Justice find this long term plan and structure to just be a thinly disguised opinion poll to support my will, he is wrong. This is a series of polls with multiple options reassuring that each citizens voice is specifically added to the entire plan. The top three doctrines and the averaged numbers of our military forces are now passed as an accepted military build-up and reorganization plan. If I wanted to, I would not even poll it.
so I want to bury any accusations on that I am exceeding my authority, of which I am
not, I am inviting the WOTP into my existing authority. And yes, this is very official policy, and that the CJ tries to deprive me of critically needed transition time for Term IV iI find disrespectful and untenable to our national needs.

however, CJ is right on one matter, is that the doctrines are not in place before 1 November, when they are to be adopted from 1 Nov 0000. However, the present MSAV Minister and future MSAV Deputy Civanator will act on these doctrines in order to arrange a smooth transition to our new miolitary reforms. As an end note to this, we expect the Judiciary to consider our just use of "very official names", as the military is as official as any institution can be, not a mickey mouse club as Nobody envisions.

I would now ask this pestering voices to add constructively to this policy and polling of doctrines in threads, and if they want to come up with alternatives, they better write them, or they will not be adopted. I will also set minimum standards for what is accepted battle plans to be adopted as poll option alternatives. I serve the people, but a few citizens of the people are not allowed to filibuster their ministry in order to prevent the policy of the majority for happening. I hope I made myself understood.

 

[blackheart]

Must you always mention people who don't support your all of your policies Provo? It seems to me that you go out of your way to bring up whoever is opposed to your policies.

GJ was pretty clear, MSAV doctrines are just that, doctrines, and not law. It means the MSAV is free to follow the doctrines, but they are NOT laws.

 

[Provolution]

Blackheart

Thank you. And of course I am allowed to answer to those parties that attack my policies in my postings. It would be muddy if I did not mention the 3-4 people continuously trying to undermine my work with no other alternative but delay, waste of time and accusations. Write an alternative, and we will poll it. Otherwise I recommend to focus on more neglected policy areas that does not involve players and actually fails to materialize results.

 

[Nobody]

@ provolution. Woman Please

(edit: i had a longer more insulting post, but the requried person read it.)

 

[gert-janl]

No more insulting in my office. Everyone's point is very clear

 

[Black_Hole]

Blackheart

Thank you. And of course I am allowed to answer to those parties that attack my policies in my postings. It would be muddy if I did not mention the 3-4 people continuously trying to undermine my work with no other alternative but delay, waste of time and accusations. Write an alternative, and we will poll it. Otherwise I recommend to focus on more neglected policy areas that does not involve players and actually fails to materialize results.

provo your doctrines cant become law, technically law cannot also be overturned by the WOTP, meaning your docrtines would be law for term 4 about how the military operates, the ppl will change their mind(shown many times in this DG) about what they want, and if these doctrines were law they couldnt change their opinon

also this is not an attack on you or your policies but the power your policies actually have

 

[Provolution]

My policies do have a base power as model plans, and as I have written countless places, these will be discussed and repolled as time gooes by. We just lacked a plan in general for the military, and now it has materialized. I am amazed that this lack has not been pointed out before, that is another question. However, I never said they were LAW, or I would have written LAW in my writings and polls, but a doctrine is a sort of documented pre-prepared plan and the reform bills are organizational plans. That some people feel overrun because we are well and thightly organized and that we have created military organizational bodies is only a means to democratize the DG.

Also, formerly, the WOTP had no influence on the conduct of war, only when to end it.
This time, the WOTP gets a say on a continuous basis. Doctrines will be rediscussed and repolled between every turnchat, but these will have a lifetime of 3 turnchats ahead, so no bickering will occur when time is critical. However, the Doctrines comprise of a conceptual base from which we can work from, so we do not have to start from scratch again and again and again. And yes, the attack you came with blackhole was unwarranted, I am still within the Const and CoL, and if I decide to give these policies the official emblem as Doctrines, Military Law and so on ,I am free to do so, as this ministry intends to be very organized and precise.

 

[Black_Hole]

My policies do have a base power as model plans, and as I have written countless places, these will be discussed and repolled as time gooes by. We just lacked a plan in general for the military, and now it has materialized. I am amazed that this lack has not been pointed out before, that is another question. However, I never said they were LAW, or I would have written LAW in my writings and polls, but a doctrine is a sort of documented pre-prepared plan and the reform bills are organizational plans. That some people feel overrun because we are well and thightly organized and that we have created military organizational bodies is only a means to democratize the DG.

Also, formerly, the WOTP had no influence on the conduct of war, only when to end it.
This time, the WOTP gets a say on a continuous basis. Doctrines will be rediscussed and repolled between every turnchat, but these will have a lifetime of 3 turnchats ahead, so no bickering will occur when time is critical. However, the Doctrines comprise of a conceptual base from which we can work from, so we do not have to start from scratch again and again and again. And yes, the attack you came with blackhole was unwarranted, I am still within the Const and CoL, and if I decide to give these policies the official emblem as Doctrines, Military Law and so on ,I am free to do so, as this ministry intends to be very organized and precise.

then we are on the same page
you had confused me because you were argueing with people that said your doctrine wasnt law....