Term 4 - Judiciary

[Provolution]

I want to bring in this poll for a judicial review, to consider it valid or not, since one option is "Other" where you have to write in your preference. As you can read from the thread, there are indeed almost a tie there. However, this poll is illegal in my opinion, as it is neither private or public, and dsicriminates the privacy of the citizens in the same poll that has to write others, compared to those who vote Odawara or Veii.
Odawara has already a legally binding poll that says it shall build Newtons College with a vast majority. I hope you can look into this matter quickly. This means, no instructions on the FP build can be resolved until this case is handled.


http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2308403#post2308403

 

[Cyc]

Before we go any further on this JR, I would like someone to prove to me that this poll is not completely private.

 

[Provolution]

Well, it is proven, the ones voting for others had to write their option down, in order for it
to be considered, so all the others votes are de facto public, where all the other votes are private.

 

[Cyc]

So if I vote for Yatta and then claim below that my "Other" choice is Doomsville, you would allow me two votes?

 

[Provolution]

Exactly, the poll has a major inherent weakness there, there is a hybrid accountability in creating a differentiated privacy policy, where the aristocrats of Veii and Odawara can hide their persona, where the Doomsville people has to announce it.

 

[Cyc]

No, the fact is this is a private poll, not a hybrid. Although it never should have been a weasley private poll, that's water under the bridge. Votes must stay the way they are. Minister Zarn is in charge of locating our second Palace as a Domestic initiative. That makes the poll legal and binding. You are trying to flank it with a personal side issue and this is not right.

 

[Ashburnham]

Provolution, there's nothing in the Constitution about public or private polls. A poll can be public, private, a "hybrid", whatever; it doesn't make the poll invalid. It simply doesn't matter.

 

[Provolution]

Well, good to know We rest the case The poll stands. I only hope for a second great leader to emerge now. As long as I am allowed to make similar polls, I assume this sets precedence in the Code of Laws as Case Law in the Common Law sense.

 

[gert-janl]

We rest the case

Does this mean you don't request a judicial review anymore? I don't really get what you want from the Judiciary in regard to this poll.

Whatever the case, I can inform you that our current ruleset (e.g. Constitution and Code of Laws) makes no difference between 'formal' and 'informal' polls. Hence every poll is valid, and to some extent (remember the Will of the People in Article J) binding. The only exception the Constitution makes between polls are Constitutional/Code of Laws amendment polls and policy polls. The latter are not exactly codified, while amendments have to follow certain procedures, and are subject to the number of voters and approval.

 

[gert-janl]

Strider has requested a Judicial Review regarding a Constitutional Amendment. He proposes to change Article K:

All irreversible game actions must progress during a public turnchat,
 while reversible game actions(ie build queues) that adhere to legal
 instruction can be prepared offline.

into:

Article K.
All irreversible game actions must progress during a public turnchat, while 
reversible game actions(ie build queues) that adhere to legal instruction can
be prepared offline.
  1. A turnchat instruction thread must be created at least 3 days before 
     the chat.
     a. All instructions created by leaders must be posted inside of the
        current turnchat instruction thread. 
        Instructions must be clear and defined.
     b. A leader must post their instructions at least one hour before the
        Turnchat. However, a leader may make changes to their instructions up
        to an hour before the chat, so long as those changes are noted.
  2. The designated player shall be charged with the creation of a date and
     time for all public turnchats.

The Court decides to add this Review to the docket and marks this Judicial Review as DG5JR#26.

 

[gert-janl]

CJ's Ruling DG5JR#26

I find no contradictions to our current ruleset, since this is just an expansion of the current article. Hence I see no problems to pass it to the Ratification Poll.

 

[gert-janl]

also, any chance the chief justice could be overruled by the other two justices if done so unanimously? As it stands (Although it would probably rarely be a problem) the Chief justice has complete control over what will go on the docket.

Just a suggestion

It's been some time ago since KCCrusader posted this. I didn't have to time to reply to it, so here is my reply.

Quite frankly, I like it. It gives the Chief Justice the authority to quickly rule on something on which is basically concensus among the judges. And if there is not, the 2 judges have to unite in order to overrule the CJ.

If the other judges agree, I will add this clause to the Procedures.

 

[mhcarver]

I find that the proposed law has no contradictions in our current ruleset and it may proceed to polling as soon as quorom is achieved

 

[mhcarver]

It's been some time ago since KCCrusader posted this. I didn't have to time to reply to it, so here is my reply.

Quite frankly, I like it. It gives the Chief Justice the authority to quickly rule on something on which is basically concensus among the judges. And if there is not, the 2 judges have to unite in order to overrule the CJ.

If the other judges agree, I will add this clause to the Procedures.

No arguments here feel free to add it

 

[ravensfire]

Public Defender's ruling on DG5JR#26:

Aside from minor typos (words running together) that the CJ should correct prior to posting the official poll, I find this proposal to not contradict any current Constitutional article. It therefore passes my Judicial Review.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[ravensfire]

It's been some time ago since KCCrusader posted this. I didn't have to time to reply to it, so here is my reply.

Quite frankly, I like it. It gives the Chief Justice the authority to quickly rule on something on which is basically concensus among the judges. And if there is not, the 2 judges have to unite in order to overrule the CJ.

If the other judges agree, I will add this clause to the Procedures.

This proposal gives a small check to a potentially abusive rule, I agree to adding this clause.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[gert-janl]

Since the amendment on Article K passed Judicial Review, an amendment poll is now up in the polls section.
The Court urges all citizens to vote in this Constitutional Amendment Poll.

 

[gert-janl]

No arguments here feel free to add it

This proposal gives a small check to a potentially abusive rule, I agree to adding this clause.

It's changed. From now on the Judge Advocate and the Public Defender can stand up together to a decision by the CJ on the merit of a Judicial Review.

 

[Sir Donald III]

May it Please the Court!

I hereby request a Judicial Review to consider what would happen if neither an Officer (encompasses both Ministers and Governors) nor his/her Deputy, are able to post instructions in the TCIT for various reasons. I have found nowhere in the Constitution, the CoL, nor the Judicial Log that can give me guidance on this.

If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then how should the DP proceed with the affairs of that Office?

 

[Black_Hole]

May it Please the Court!

I hereby request a Judicial Review to consider what would happen if neither an Officer (encompasses both Ministers and Governors) nor his/her Deputy, are able to post instructions in the TCIT for various reasons. I have found nowhere in the Constitution, the CoL, nor the Judicial Log that can give me guidance on this.

If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then how should the DP proceed with the affairs of that Office?

i thought JRs questions had to be answerable with yes or no.....