This Juidicial Review of proposed law is approved and docketed as DG7JR11 - Amendment to Article C.
I will post my opinion shortly
I will post my opinion shortly
Term 3 Judiciary
- Thread starter Bootstoots
- Start date
The text of the proposed amendment to Article C of the constitution violates no Articles of the Constitution. However, it was submitted too early according to Article N. Article N states:
Please wait until then and resubmit the amendment.
The proposed poll has not been up for 24 hours yet, and the discussion thread has only been open since October 7 at 21:26 GMT (5:26 PM EDT), less than 24 hours ago. As such, this amendment fails Judicial Review at the moment, though any submission after October 9, 21:26 GMT will be valid.
Please wait until then and resubmit the amendment.
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
I agree with the Chief Justice, please wait and resubmit
You guys promise to be online at that time? I would like the poll posted as immediately as possible please. Last game I was extremely upset with the judicidary when a whole week passed between the JR for an amendment and the poll being posted because the judiciary bickered among themselves about who should post it.
Donovan Zoi
The Return
Take your time, Judiciary. This is a flawed law.
I'll be online at or close to that time and should be able to make a ruling quickly. As for who will post the poll, that is clearly in my jurisdiction, so I'll post it as soon as I see that it passed Judicial Review. I'd like to get all three opinions on the amendment before concluding the review and posting the poll, however, so if another Justice takes awhile in posting their review, it could take some time. That's the only thing I can see slowing this down, though, and I'll send PM's once I see it resubmitted. Also, keep in mind that the poll will have to be open for 96 hours according to Article N, so the chances of this finishing before next turnchat are nil.DaveShack said:
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
It can be resubmitted any time now
But the Judiciary cannot guarantee any timing, mhcarver is usually quite busy with school work
But the Judiciary cannot guarantee any timing, mhcarver is usually quite busy with school work
resubmitted:
Greetings Justices,
I would like to request an urgent Judicial Review of the attached bill amending Article C of the Constitution. This review is being requested in parallel with the citizen discussion to expedite the process, so that ratification can occur prior to our (hopefully) upcoming peace with Germany. Please act on this review assuming the posted text does not need further changes via the discussion process.
========================================
Proposed poll:
Do you approve this amendment to Article C of the Constitution?
Yes/No/Abstain
Note: New text is provided both with and without formatting. The "unformatted" version is the one to be included in the Constitution. The "formatted" version is provided for your reference only and is not binding. Any disagreement between the formatted and unformatted version is incidental and does not affect amendment passage.
Current text:
Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.
Proposed new text without formatting (official copy):
Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization taken by any means may be held by Fanatikos at the end of a turn. Any other cities beyond the limits stated in this article must be razed immediately or abandoned prior to the end of the turn. Foreign cities may be acquired during a turn or between turns as long as enough cities are abandoned prior to the end of the turn to comply with the limits stated in this article.
Proposed new text (non-binding copy, provided for reference only):
Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilizationmay be taken by any means may be held by Fanatikos at the end of a turn. Any other cities beyond the limits stated in this article must be razed immediately or abandoned prior to the end of the turn. Foreign cities may be acquired during a turn or between turns as long as enough cities are abandoned prior to the end of the turn to comply with the limits stated in this article.
Greetings Justices,
I would like to request an urgent Judicial Review of the attached bill amending Article C of the Constitution. This review is being requested in parallel with the citizen discussion to expedite the process, so that ratification can occur prior to our (hopefully) upcoming peace with Germany. Please act on this review assuming the posted text does not need further changes via the discussion process.
========================================
Proposed poll:
Do you approve this amendment to Article C of the Constitution?
Yes/No/Abstain
Note: New text is provided both with and without formatting. The "unformatted" version is the one to be included in the Constitution. The "formatted" version is provided for your reference only and is not binding. Any disagreement between the formatted and unformatted version is incidental and does not affect amendment passage.
Current text:
Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.
Proposed new text without formatting (official copy):
Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization taken by any means may be held by Fanatikos at the end of a turn. Any other cities beyond the limits stated in this article must be razed immediately or abandoned prior to the end of the turn. Foreign cities may be acquired during a turn or between turns as long as enough cities are abandoned prior to the end of the turn to comply with the limits stated in this article.
Proposed new text (non-binding copy, provided for reference only):
Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization
This review is approved and will be docketed as DG7JR12 - Amendment to Article C (second attempt).
Ruling to come shortly.
Ruling to come shortly.
The proposed amendment to Article C of the Constitution violates no other articles. As such, it should pass Judicial Review.
Judicial ruling - DG7JR11
By a 2-0 decision, an amendment proposed by DaveShack to Article C of the Constitution has failed Judicial Review because it was submitted too early, violating Article N of the Constitution as well as the Judicial Procedures. The Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate voted for this ruling, with the Public Defender not casting a vote. The review was concluded early due to the resubmission of the amendment at such a time that it did not violate Article N, making this review obsolete.
As a note, I would normally never conclude a review with a missing opinion, but since this review became obsolete, asking for an opinion from mhcarver on it is a needless formality.
By a 2-0 decision, an amendment proposed by DaveShack to Article C of the Constitution has failed Judicial Review because it was submitted too early, violating Article N of the Constitution as well as the Judicial Procedures. The Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate voted for this ruling, with the Public Defender not casting a vote. The review was concluded early due to the resubmission of the amendment at such a time that it did not violate Article N, making this review obsolete.
As a note, I would normally never conclude a review with a missing opinion, but since this review became obsolete, asking for an opinion from mhcarver on it is a needless formality.
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
I find the Daveshack's proposed legislation is not in conflict with current law and should move forward to the polling process.
mhcarver
Newspaper Mogul
I find the current resolution is not in conflict with law and should move forward, I wouild like to apologize for not ruling on the first submission because I interpreted it as a dismissal by the CJ, which I agreed with
Okay, that's fine. Actually, I should have dismissed it out of hand, but didn't notice the timespan until after accepting it for review (but not before reviewing it), so I decided to proceed with it.mhcarver said:
Judicial Ruling - DG7JR12
By a 3-0 decision, the Judiciary has ruled that an amendment proposed by DaveShack to article C of the Constitution conflicts with no laws, and therefore passes Judicial Review and will proceed to the polling phase.
The poll should be up soon.
By a 3-0 decision, the Judiciary has ruled that an amendment proposed by DaveShack to article C of the Constitution conflicts with no laws, and therefore passes Judicial Review and will proceed to the polling phase.
The poll should be up soon.
Furiey
No Longer Just Lurking
I have a point for Judiacial Review:
Article C. Game Structure
Many questions were asked and answered by the Judiciary during previous terms on capturing cities, but this particular question was not asked and with the discussion surrounding changing this law I believe it should be:
So I suppose that's 2 questions:
1. Can we rebuild if a city is destroyed
2. Can we raze and then resettle one of our own cities.
Article C. Game Structure
Many questions were asked and answered by the Judiciary during previous terms on capturing cities, but this particular question was not asked and with the discussion surrounding changing this law I believe it should be:
Our laws say that "No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time." so if a city was captured we couldn't build another, but if a city was razed then 5 cities would no longer exist and we should be should be able to build another as it does not specify the same 5 cities. Could we also then raze one of or existing cities and rebuild providing we raze before we resettle?DaveShack said:
So I suppose that's 2 questions:
1. Can we rebuild if a city is destroyed
2. Can we raze and then resettle one of our own cities.
This review is found to have Merit and will be docketed as DG7JR13 - Meaning of "5 cities built" clause, Article C
It will be addressed in two parts:
1. Can we rebuild if a city is destroyed?
2. Can we raze one of our own cities and the resettle it?
Citizens: feel free to make comments.
It will be addressed in two parts:
1. Can we rebuild if a city is destroyed?
2. Can we raze one of our own cities and the resettle it?
Citizens: feel free to make comments.
greekguy
Missed the Boat
Citizen Comment
ok, here's my take on this:
1. i believe the law states that we cannot have more than "5 Built Cities at any one time". if one of the built cities got razed, then we would have 4 cities. since that would be 4 cities at that specific time, we would be allowed to build a new 5th city.
2. on this one i would have to say self-razing would be legal, but i would think it would be betraying citizens.
ok, here's my take on this:
1. i believe the law states that we cannot have more than "5 Built Cities at any one time". if one of the built cities got razed, then we would have 4 cities. since that would be 4 cities at that specific time, we would be allowed to build a new 5th city.
2. on this one i would have to say self-razing would be legal, but i would think it would be betraying citizens.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
1. I would say yes, we can and should (with or without the amendment). I think we should take full advantage of what the Law allows.
2. Again, I would say yes we can. But should we? Only if we really, really need to...
An act like this would fer sure piss off the people arguing against DaveShack's Proposed Amendment. 
2. Again, I would say yes we can. But should we? Only if we really, really need to...
An act like this would fer sure piss off the people arguing against DaveShack's Proposed Amendment. 
Gerikes
User of Run-on Sentences.
Citizen Comment on DG7JR13-
Seems to me that "No more than five cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time" means that if one of our cities gets destroyed, there's nothing stopping us from building another one to replace it. So, that's a Yes for A, and it may be placed anywhere, not just on the same ground. However, if a city is taken and not razed, it still counts as one of our five cities, and so we cannot build another one.
Also, it seems to me that there is nothing in the constitution that is stopping us from abandoning one of our own cities. So, it's a Yes for B also.
Constitution said:
Seems to me that "No more than five cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time" means that if one of our cities gets destroyed, there's nothing stopping us from building another one to replace it. So, that's a Yes for A, and it may be placed anywhere, not just on the same ground. However, if a city is taken and not razed, it still counts as one of our five cities, and so we cannot build another one.
Also, it seems to me that there is nothing in the constitution that is stopping us from abandoning one of our own cities. So, it's a Yes for B also.
Similar threads
[Extension]
Hinin's Tweaks for VP