Term 3 Judiciary

[ravensfire]

Question
Strider asks "Can we accept that the same requirements holds true if your replacing the Code of Laws?"

Relevant Law
From Section 10 of the Code of Laws:

A) Amending the Code of Laws
I. The Code of Laws may be amended by a 60% majority of votes cast in a public poll which shall be open for no fewer than 4 days.

II. Minor changes to the Code of Laws, such as correcting typographical and clerical errors, reorganization and reformatting for better readability, and addition of text which does not impact legal definitions may be made at any time.

IIA. If any citizen objects to a minor change within the 48 hour period commencing when the minor change is proposed, the change shall be considered an amendment and must undergo ratification as such.

Citizen Comments
Thanks to robboo, Strider, Swissempire, Daveshack and Donovan Zoi for their comments on this matter.

Analysis
The question is simple - can an amendment to the Code of Laws be structured so as to completely replace the existing Code of Laws.

Reviewing the law, there are no limits placed on the scope of the amendment. Nor does the Constitution place any limits on the amendment process.


Ruling
Replacing the entire Code of Laws follows the same requirements as any other Amendment would.

Does the amendment process given in Section 10 of the Code of Laws apply to a complete overhaul? Explain your reasoning.
Yes.

Is this amendment process consistent with the Constitution?
Yes.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

EDIT: CJ's questions added

 

[ravensfire]

Question
robboo asks "can more than one person share the same elected office."

Relevant Law
Article D of the Constitution:

1. Terms of service of all elected and appointed offices shall be determined in advance of the beginning of such term, as further defined by law.
2. All Election and other polls in which specific individuals are chosen by name shall be private polls, and not public polls.
3. The candidate with the highest vote total is the winner of an election poll, regardless of whether such vote total is a majority of votes cast or not.
1. Should two or more candidates tie for the most votes, as many runoff elections shall be held as needed to resolve the election, as further defined by law.

Section 5 of the Code of Laws:

A) Elections
I. Elections of the Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges shall be of all nominated candidates who have accepted their nominations.

IA. Ballots shall have the names of all the candidates for a given office plus Abstain.

II. Nominations for Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges positions may be self nominations or a citizen may be nominated by another citizens.

III. Elections may only be held for offices that exist at the time of election.

Citizen Comments
Thanks to robboo and Methos for their comments on this.

Analysis
The language used in both sets of laws is clearly predisposed towards a single citizen per office. "Should two or more candidates tie for the most votes ..."; "specific individuals are chosen by name"; "The candidate with the highest vote total"

There are significant issues that can arise with multiple citizen per office, none of which are addressed in the current law. Concerns such as division of duties, legal responsibility and authority are key amongst those, and must be addressed before a shared office should be attempted.

Ruling
Multiple citizens may not share the same elected office during the same term. Nothing prohibits an office holder delegating some of their duties to another citizen, but such delegation only passes the duties, not the responsibilities.

Does the intent of the authors of the Code of Laws and the Constitution have relevancy to the meaning of the same?
Yes. More important is, of course, any relevant section of the law, but courts have long held that the intent of the lawmakers is relevant to discussions.

If so, was it the intent of those authors that all named offices be held by a single person?
I believe so.

If so to question 2, what effect would this have on the legality of jointly holding offices?
None - the language of the law is clear on this matter.

In general, explain other relevant issues to the legality of jointly holding offices, in both the Code of Laws and the Constitution, and if the former is consistent with the latter. Should, if necessary, any words be read in to either of them to clarify this in the future and ensure constitutionality?
The use of "reading in" is unconstitutional and illegal.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

EDIT: CJ's questions added

 

[ravensfire]

Question
Nobody asks "But i want a Judical Review if Chieftesses appiontment of myself was legal."

Relevant Law
Section 8.C of the Code of Laws:

I. A Vacancy occurs when an office is empty due to the office holder resigning, judicial action, impeachment, if no citizen ran for election for that office or when a new office is created.

Section 8.C.II of the Code of Laws:

IIA. If there is a Vacancy in the Triumvirate, the President shall nominate a citizen to that office. If the Presidency is Vacant, the Secretary of State, or Secretary of War if the Secretary of State is also Vacant, shall nominate a citizen to that office. The citizen must accept the nomination prior any further steps.

Citizen Comments
Thanks to Swissempire, Chillaxation and DaveShack for their comments on this.

Analysis
The first step in this process was the assumption of Presidential powers by the Secretary of State. This assumption of powers was based on two beliefs - that the office of President was Vacant, and that the Secretary of State would assume the powers of the Presidency if that office was vacant.

Section 8.C.I clearly states the circumstances of declaring an office vacant. The office of President was clearly not empty due to resignation, judicial action or impeachment, nor was it newly created. The only remaining option, no citizen running for office, clearly fails. The election for that office simply was not finished yet.

Given that, the office of President was NOT vacant, thus under no law could the Secretary of State assume the office of President.

Ruling
The appointment of Citizen nobody to the office of Chief Justice was not legal.

In the Presidency is vacant, may the Secretary of State assume the Presidency, acting as a quasi-Vice President?
Clearly not - such an action would be illegal.

If so, then must the Secretary of State resign in order to be consistent with Section 8, sub-section B of the Code laws? Is this consistent with the Constitution?
Not applicable.

If so to all of the above, then were the procedures in Section 8, sub-section V, sub-sub-sections VA and VB followed? In what cases, if any, will these have different meanings? Are there any words that need to be read into the Code of Laws to ensure constitutionality, and, if so, what are they?
Not applicable.
Again, "reading in" is unconstitutional and illegal.

Was Nobody's resignation, if he was appointed, legal? What, if any, words need to be read into the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?
Not applicable.
Again, "reading in" is unconstitutional and illegal.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

EDIT: CJ's questions added.

 

[ravensfire]

Question
Chillaxation asks "While there is a clear requirement that appointments be provisional until a "the time for the confirmation poll has passed," that time period is not set for each type of vacancy. For example, how long should a Chief Justice appointment from the presidency be considered provisional before it passes into full effect? I imagine that it is the same moment at which calls for a confirmation poll are no longer valid, but it would be good to have a clear procedure, in my opinion. "

Relevant Law
Section 8.C of the Code of Laws:

VI. All vacancy appointments which are subject to a confirmation poll are provisional until the time for a confirmation poll has passed, or when a confirmation poll for that appointment concludes with a 'Yes' majority.

Citizen Comments


Analysis
The question is clear - when does an appointment to an office stop being "provisional"? The relevant clause is clear on this "...are provisional until the time for a confirmation poll has passed, or when a confirmation poll for that appointment concludes with a 'Yes' majority." So, there are two scenarios - one of which is when the appointee is confirmed through a poll. The second scenario - "until the time for a confirmation poll has passed" also seems clear, but a review of the Code of Laws does not turn up a deadline for a confirmation poll. Without this, a confirmation poll can be posted at any time during a term. This seems to be a legislative over-sight that should be corrected.

Ruling

Appointees to an office are Provisional until a Confirmation poll concludes with a "Yes" majority.

There is not time limit within a term for when a Confirmation poll may be posted.

What, if at all, does the Code of Laws say to refer to the time an appointed office is considered provisional?
An office is considered provisional until the time for a confirmation poll as passed, or a confirmation poll closes with a "Yes" majority.

Is this the same time period that that appointment is subject to a confirmation poll?
No. There is no time period mentioned for when an appointment is subject to a confirmation poll. This should be corrected by legislative action.

What, if any, words need to be read in to the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?
Again, "reading in" is unconstitutional and illegal.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[ravensfire]

Question
Swissempire asks for "a Judicial Review into the legality of said poll.", referring to the confirmation poll. He also asks if confirmation polls must be 48 hours in length.

Relevant Law
Section 3.II of the Code of Laws:

IIC. All official polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days to be binding, however it is recommended that binding polls be open from 3 to 4 days if possible.

Section 8.C.VI of the Code of Laws:

VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office. This is a private poll, asking the question "Should <citizen name> serve as <office>?", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll should last for 48 hours. If a majority of citizens who vote, excluding abstain, vote no, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term.

Citizen Comments
There have been no comments on this JR, although comments on JR8 may be relevant.

Analysis
There are two questions here, was the confirmation poll legal, and how long should they be. Essentially, the answer on the first depends on the second, so I'll address them in reverse order.

The relevant section is "This poll should last for 48 hours", with "should" being the key word. The Code of Laws is an extremely detailed and defined ruleset. It goes into also excruciating detail on various points. Based on this, the word "should" probably doesn't belong here, but it does, in the context, introduce variability in the length of the poll. I cannot see how this would require a poll of exactly 48 hours to be used.

Based on that, I cannot find any issues with the confirmation poll. It was posted in a timely manner, and clearly states the question. While I personally would have preferred donsig explain his reasoning in a second post, there is no requirement for that. donsig's explanation about the length of the poll is also supported by the Code of Laws (Section 3.II.IIC, "... recommended that binding polls be open from 3 to 4 days if possible." Given the ambiguity in Section 8.C.VI.VIA, this section of the Code of Laws is both relevant and governing.

Ruling
The confirmation poll was legal as posted by donsig.

There is no requirement that confirmation polls must be exactly 48 hours in duration.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

EDIT: JR sorted out (finally), sorry for trouble. Awaiting any CJ questions for this JR.

 

[Curufinwe]

Now for mine:

on amending the Code of laws:

No need to repost laws, ravensfire has already done that. It is my opinion that since. To answer the posed questions:

1) Does the amendment process given in Section 10 of the Code of Laws apply to a complete overhaul? Explain your reasoning.

Yes, as no alternative is given, therefore, by default, there is one amendment process.

2) Is this amendment process consistent with the Constitution?

Yes.

Second case-jointly held offices-

1) Does the intent of the authors of the Code of Laws and the Constitution have relevancy to the meaning of the same?

Absolutely not, this principle being repugnant to justice and the standard operation of courts the world round, including the innovative courts of Israel, South Africa, Canada and Europe.

2) If so, was it the intent of those authors that all named offices be held by a single person?

Not applicable

3) If so to question 2, what effect would this have on the legality of jointly holding offices?

Not applicable

4) In general, explain other relevant issues to the legality of jointly holding offices, in both the Code of Laws and the Constitution, and if the former is consistent with the latter. Should, if necessary, any words be read in to either of them to clarify this in the future and ensure constitutionality?

For the reasons given by my colleagues on the Court, the CoL refers repeatedly to a single winner for most elections, as does the Constitution. Therefore, currently I hold that offices are meant to be won by one person. However, if the needs of the future should change, then the meaning of those two documents would change as well, leaving the door open to future courts to redefine the documents as need be.

On to the third case, on assumption of presidential powers and the legality of the same:

1) In the Presidency is vacant, may the Secretary of State assume the Presidency, acting as a quasi-Vice President?

Regretfully, the law allowing this was replaced, meaning there is no clear-cut answer. However, the remaining section of the law implies that the SoS and SoW are to ensure continuity of powers, therefore implying a principle of a vice-presidency in the other members of the Triumvirate. Therefore, as the need of the time was, I hold the assumption of presidential powers by the SoS to be in that case legal, as we had need of a quick resolution to our problems.

2) If so, then must the Secretary of State resign in order to be consistent with Section 8, sub-section B of the Code laws? Is this consistent with the Constitution?

The Code of Laws is silent on whether the SoS actually assumes another office, or whether this is an out-growth of the office of the SoS. The Constitution is likewise silent. Lacking therefore a specific answer, I declare this question unanswerable according to the current CoL and constitution.

3) If so to all of the above, then were the procedures in Section 8, sub-section V, sub-sub-sections VA and VB followed? In what cases, if any, will these have different meanings? Are there any words that need to be read into the Code of Laws to ensure constitutionality, and, if so, what are they?

They were. The procedures are flexible, and given the needs of the time, and the fact that Chieftess had made her decision, more time would not have changed the outcome. However, the constitution and CoL do imply that a guarantee of participation is a fundamental principle. However, the urgency of the time allows for this principle to be ignored in pursuit of other principles.

4) Was Nobody's resignation, if he was appointed, legal? What, if any, words need to be read into the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?

All resignations are legal, and the individual resigning is the main authority on what constitutes a resignation. No outside authority may refuse a resignation.

In regards to the fourth matter, that of the time an appointed office is provisional:

) What, if at all, does the Code of Laws say to refer to the time an appointed office is considered provisional? Is this the same time period that that appointment is subject to a confirmation poll?

It doesn't say anything, an amendment is needed to clarify this.

2) What, if any, words need to be read in to the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?

Due to lack of consensus on the principle of reading in, I won't read in anything to the Code of Laws.

Since it wholly replaces the Code of Laws, Striders proposed amendment is legal in that respect. As well, it follows the Constitution. Therefore, I find that it be allowed to go ahead.

I'll deal with JR10 tomorrow.

There are my five decisions. Sorry for hte delay, but hopefully we can continue moving forward.

 

[donsig]

I formally protest the Curufinwe's rulings on the judicial reviews that have a bearing on his position as Chief Justice. It is a dark day indeed for our country when the one chosen to preside over our judiciary can so cavalierly disregard the spirit of our constitition.

 

[ravensfire]

Chief Justice Curufinwe,

I believe that Stider's edits since his initial post would be construed as him pulling his requested amendment poll.

Also, please review the rulings by all three of us, and update the Judicial log with the results.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[Swissempire]

I formally protest the Curufinwe's rulings on the judicial reviews that have a bearing on his position as Chief Justice. It is a dark day indeed for our country when the one chosen to preside over our judiciary can so cavalierly disregard the spirit of our constitition.

No, the dark day is the day when the will of the poeple is overlooked by someone who clings for dear life to the old ways. The dark days are when the former status quo and the one currently being shaped come head-to-head and divide the nation. Traditions are shaped, used and ventually forgotten, and new ones born.

And i would ask that all three justices weight in ruling on JR10. One, its merit has not been ruled on, and too, time for citizien comments was not alotte. I have prepared a strong case, and ask i begiven the chance to present it.

 

[donsig]

For those interested I have posted a Citizen's Initiative Poll asking whether sitting justices should be allowed to make rulings on cases affecting themselves.

 

[ravensfire]

And i would ask that all three justices weight in ruling on JR10. One, its merit has not been ruled on, and too, time for citizien comments was not alotte. I have prepared a strong case, and ask i begiven the chance to present it.

My ruling on JR10 has been made, although I reserve the right to edit if warranted.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[ravensfire]

NOTE!

Due to an oversight, the ruling for JR8 was not posted with the other rulings. This has been corrected.

In addition, the questions posed by the Chief Justice for each JR, as best I can determine, are included.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[Swissempire]

I have posted a JR10 dicusstion thread here

I hope this proves to people that i was in the right, and that i am more than capable of being a justice. I remind everyone to make there own opinions, don't just regurgitate what you here.

Ravensfire, i hope my arguements change your mind

 

[Veera Anlai]

Ravensfire, I hope you don't mind if I borrow your post formatting for the judicial reviews. I rather like how organized it is!

Case
C4DG1JR10

Question
Swissempire asks for "a Judicial Review into the legality of said poll.", referring to the confirmation poll. He also asks if confirmation polls must be 48 hours in length.

Relevant Law
Ravensfire posted the relevant law in his ruling.

Analysis
Although I agree with almost everything the Public Defender has said, I'm afraid that I disagree with his conclusion. As stated, the relevant section is indeed, "This poll should last for 48 hours." Although I will agree that the word "should" is ambiguous, I believe that in this instance, it is merely used as a more polite form of "must." Otherwise, why even bother putting such a clause into the laws to begin with? In my reading of this law, I find the 48 hours to be a mandate, not a recommendation. This is based on a rather common-sense reading of the law.

Therefore, even though the rest of the poll was perfectly legal, I find that extending the poll past 48 hours was a violation of Section 8.C.VI.VIA of the Code of Laws as written.

Ruling
The confirmation poll posted by donsig was illegal when extended past 48 hours.

Confirmation polls must be 48 hours in duration.

 

[Curufinwe]

Sorry for my delay, but I'll do the organisation stuff tomorrow, as I've been rushed for time today.

My ruling on JR10:


All parts already stated by fellow justices

By stating that the poll should last for 48 hours, this implies that the fundamental principle of participation is also limited by the fact that the game must go on, and since most people will ahve voted in 48 hours, it seems a reasonable limitation to have, except in cases where time is abundant, a cap. Therefore, in this case, the extension of the poll, though not the poll itself, was illegal.

Ruling:

The extension of confirmation polls beyond 48 hours is illegal. All polls must be 48 hours in duration, no more or less.

 

[DaveShack]

Regretfully, the law allowing this was replaced, meaning there is no clear-cut answer.

I must respectfully request a clarification on this statement.

Does this refer to the document being edited to include the results of amendments, such that you wish your ruling could be made based on the previous content of the law which was deleted by that edit? If so, in my not so humble opinion this represents a clear mistake. The actual amendment was passed long before the actions in question, so the previous law can not be used. It is true that the previous law did in fact state that the Secretary of State assumed the duties of the Presidency, however the new, current law, as amended, does not contain anything of the sort.

If this were a determination of merit for a CC against Chieftess for overstepping the bounds of the SoS position, then this question would certainly affect merit. It would be perfectly reasonable to argue that Chieftess thought the appointment was legal under the old law, and I would personally have ruled a CC had no merit due to the misunderstanding -- but I would have ruled the new law applies to the JR, and the appointment was indeed invalid.

As a reminder, again with all due respect, judicial rulings must be clear. Please help us understand what your ruling actually means on this point.

 

[Curufinwe]

I said that it was regretfully replaced because the old law clearly stated what was to be done, whereas the new law didn't, makign the job of figuring out what the law means substnatially harder. Nothing to do with my preference for either one.

 

[ravensfire]

Odd, the new law is also pretty clear about what should be done.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Curufinwe]

I feel otherwise, as explained in my dissent. The CoL previously detailed where presidential powers went if the office was unfilled, therefore, it clearly showed a vice-presidency. The new one merely offered a procedure to fill the new office, leaving a time where those powers wouldn't devolve on any office. It is my opinion that the meaning of the law is that the SoS, or, in their absence, the SoW, are to assume the authority of the same.

 

[Swissempire]

Curu, for the Judicial log, the ruling included that confirmation polls must be 48 hours