Term 4 - Judiciary

[Sir Donald III]

I didn't read that in the Term 4 Court Procedures.

Though, if I had to ask Y/N questions, that JR would have multiple questions. I guess it would be like this:

1. If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then can the Turnchat proceed?

2. And, if so, Can the DP change standing orders relating to that Office? (Standing orders are items that can be continued such as Slider Settings, orders regarding Demands, and Build Queues.)


The reason why I bring this up is that in 12 Hours, I'll have to have a TC with no orders for Edo Province. I'm considering letting the current build orders (from the previous TC) stand, but not go beyond them. If the Justices decide any differently, then I will abide by their decision in future TCs.

 

[Black_Hole]

I didn't read that in the Term 4 Court Procedures.

Though, if I had to ask Y/N questions, that JR would have multiple questions. I guess it would be like this:

1. If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then can the Turnchat proceed?

2. And, if so, Can the DP change standing orders relating to that Office? (Standing orders are items that can be continued such as Slider Settings, orders regarding Demands, and Build Queues.)


The reason why I bring this up is that in 12 Hours, I'll have to have a TC with no orders for Edo Province. I'm considering letting the current build orders (from the previous TC) stand, but not go beyond them. If the Justices decide any differently, then I will abide by their decision in future TCs.

you are correct, it seems that was taken out...

 

[gert-janl]

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review on the issue of the absence of both the official and his deputy. His exact question to the court is as follows.

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?

The Court sees that this Judicial Review has merit and it will be marked as DG5JR#27 in the docket.

 

[ravensfire]

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review on the issue of the absence of both the official and his deputy. His exact question to the court is as follows.

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?

The Court sees that this Judicial Review has merit and it will be marked as DG5JR#27 in the docket.

Sir Donald III also posted two yes/no questions in place of his original question. Should we include our answers to those in our opinion?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[gert-janl]

Let's consider those as sub-questions. So try to formulate an answer to these questions while ruling on the main-question.

 

[gert-janl]

CJ's Ruling DG5JR#27

Currently there is no specific law in place to give the DP any guidance on what to do if a leader doesn't post instructions or is absent.
However, I would like reference to article E.2.b of the Constitution for this matter.

[b]Constitution Article E.2.b[/b]
Governors are responsible for the care, management, use of the 
cities, and use of lands of a province through the setting of build queues, 
allocation of laborers on tiles, population rushes and drafting of citizen 
soldiers.

Stating that governors are responsible for setting any build queus, this article suggests that build queues remain valid until they are changed by the governor, or if applicable his deputy, or until the queue finished. Therefore they may not be changed by the DP, without the explicit approval of the governor So I would suggest the DP to finish the build queues, as set by the governor first.

If the governor, or any other official, is absent, as prescribed by the Code of Laws in article G.3.b

[b]Code of Laws Article G.3.b[/b]
Should an offical fail to post instructions for 2 consecutive turn chats
without prior notice, the Judiciary may declare that office vacant

the president will be allowed to appoint a new official as set forth by Constitution article G.4.
However if an official fails to task his deputy with the official's authority, as described in Article G.2 of the Constitution, I think that the office can even be considered vacant if the absence is announced in advance.

To get back on your question I will provide a short statement. In the event of the absence of both an official and his deputy, the DP should finish the existing buildqueues, and if no further instructions are provided, should take over the responsibility of the office, by either appointing a new official, if the office have been declared vacant by the Judiciary, or by setting buildqueus that way, the DP deems the best, taking into account the Will of the People.

EDIT: This ruling is based on the situation that a governor fails to post new instructions. However, this ruling also applies if a member of the Executive Branch fails to post instructions, since the same rules apply to them concerning deputies.

 

[ravensfire]

Sir Donald III comes before the court asking:

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?

Along with this, he asks two sub-questions:

1. If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then can the Turnchat proceed?

2. And, if so, Can the DP change standing orders relating to that Office? (Standing orders are items that can be continued such as Slider Settings, orders regarding Demands, and Build Queues.)

The DP is perhaps the most thankless job in the DG. It takes a tremendous amount of time and planning to pull off, and usually garners only disapproval, second-guessing and complaints. These are from when there are instructions!

The specific question is how to proceed when there are no instructions.

Relevant law

Article D:  The President shall take direction from a 
            council of leaders and from other elected and appointed 
            officials via the turnchat instruction thread.

Article J.  Elected officials must plan and act according to the will 
            of the people. The will of the people will be determined 
            through discussion and polls, formal or informal. If pertinent 
            discussion is done outside the scope of the DG forums, then it must 
            be documented in the Turnchat Instruction Thread 6 hours
            prior to the commencement of the turnchat by the appropriate 
            leader.

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.

Citizen comments
At the time of this posting, no citizen comments have been made on this JR.

Analysis
As feared by Sir Donald III, an elected official did fail to post instructions for their office. SDIII adopted the position that he would follow the instructions from the TCIT. The President is bound by Article D to "take direction" through the TCIT (interestingly enough, the DP is not bound by Article D if they are not the President). These instructions must follow (per Article J) the Will of the People (WotP) from discussions and polls. The requirement for the DP to follow legal instructions is somewhat vague compared to previous games, but still very much in force through Article J. The question, however, is what happens when the WotP is not made clear to the President/DP?

We, through our laws, place the burden of posting instructions upon the elected officials. If they fail to post instructions directly or indirectly (through others via PM, for example), the elected official is in danger of being removed from office. This burden is shared only to the deputy for that office, who may post instructions for an office if the main holder does not post anything. There is no burden placed in law for the President to conduct discussions or post instructions for absent ministers.

With this desire to punish only the minister for missing instructions, it seems foolish to further punish the DP by requiring them to look through multiple discussions/polls to determine what the WotP might be for that office.

Ruling by the Public Defender
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?

The DP may conduct the affairs of that office as they see fit, using their best judgement. They may, at their discretion, request advice from those attending the chat, but are under no obligation to ask for advice, or follow any advice given. This involves all aspects of that office. Turn Chat instructions are found only in the TCIT - all other instructions/standing orders not referenced in a post in the current TCIT are invalid (see Article D).

If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then can the Turnchat proceed?

Yes.

And, if so, Can the DP change standing orders relating to that Office? (Standing orders are items that can be continued such as Slider Settings, orders regarding Demands, and Build Queues.)

Yes.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[mhcarver]

To open up Article's D state that


Article D : The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread.

Code:
Article J. Elected officials must plan and act according to the will
of the people. The will of the people will be determined
through discussion and polls, formal or informal. If pertinent
discussion is done outside the scope of the DG forums, then it must
be documented in the Turnchat Instruction Thread 6 hours
prior to the commencement of the turnchat by the appropriate
leader.



The question is "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?"

in the case of governors the DP should follow the buildques until they have finished . After the buildques the DP may act in the place of that leader as he/she sees fit until either the head of the province/department returns or is declared vacant , in which case the DP is required to follow the constitutions requirments for filling a vacant office.

the questions

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?
The DP may act in place of those ministers as he she/sees fit unless it is a governor , then the DP must finish the buildques before taking over
If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then can the Turnchat proceed?
Yes



And, if so, Can the DP change standing orders relating to that Office? (Standing orders are items that can be continued such as Slider Settings, orders regarding Demands, and Build Queues.)

Yes


I know this is not as long or detailed as the PD or CJ's rulings but I have been busy lately and am loaded with work now(200+ math problems and 2 literary analysis paper) and I feel that this case needed a clear ruling sooner rather than a detailed one later.

 

[gert-janl]

***Chief Justice gert-janl got down from his seat. When he walked through the empty courthouse his footsteps echoed against the high ceiling. Strafing towards the exit he passed the 'Hall of Famous Judges'. He passed a lot of old paintings of all his predecessors. Then he noticed the painting of former Chief Justice Cyc. He moved his head closer to the painting so that he could smell the paint. His imagination took him for a while. "Imagine", he thought, "how it would be like to be actually working". When he looked closely he noticed that this former Chief Justice looked very worried on the painting. Apparently this man had to deal with a lot of cases. This created worries with the present term Chief Justice. He wondered what had changed over time..."Would the constitution be perfect now? Would everything be settled peacefully by the citizens without needing the intervention of a Court?" The sudden movement behind him awoke him from his worried thoughts. The Chief Justice turned around, but couldn't see what awoke him. Depressed he continued walking through the hall of Famous Judges and entered the Central Hall. He decided to take a walk outside. He walked to the huge wooden door of the Courthouse. He tried to open it, but the door seemed jammed. After numerous times trying to open the rusty locks the Chief Justice succeeded. The bright sunlight entered the building and blinded the Chief Justice; he wasn't used to daylight anymore. After a while he could see again, and he noticed various busy marketsalesmen at the market across the street. "At least some people are working", he thought. After making a short walk, he got back into his Courthouse, hoping to be working soon. ***

 

[Ashburnham]

Ashburnham looks around the dusty Courthouse, not seeing any activity. He leaves a note on one of the desks and walks out

I'd like to ask for a Judicial Review regarding authority. Who has the final say on embassy and espionage missions? Specifically, who says when to send missions, where to send them, and what exactly to do? Common sense would say the FA Ministry, but it's never mentioned in the Constitution (as far as I could tell).

Glad you've got something on the docket now,
Deputy Ashburnham

 

[classical_hero]

Classical_hero walks into the courthouse. "Hello" he yells. "This place must be barren. Justice seems to be asleep in this nation."

@Ash. I would assume it be the job of the FA to be in charge of espionage, because does not seem to fit any other ministry. I think that Atricle D in the Constitution needs to be fleshed out so that it includes all the Jobs of each department. not just a brief, unclear description.

 

[Provolution]

This is exactly why some of us has tried to create organizations out of ministries, to some isolated players dismay. But for me it has increased the value of the DG, and many agrees.

 

[gert-janl]

Ashburnham has requested a Judicial Review regarding article D of the Constitution.
He would like to know who, according to the Constitution has the final say on embassy and espionage missions? Specifically, who says when to send missions, where to send them, and what exactly to do?

After consideration this Court decides that this Judicial Review has merit and it will be marked as DG5JR#28 in the Court's docket.

 

[gert-janl]

CJ's Ruling on DG5JR#28

Here's the most important article of this Judicial Review for reference.

[b]Article D.2[/b]
The minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible for matters
involving treaties with foreign nations, as prescribed by law

Article D.2 specifies the task of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. However this article remains quite vague on the exact task. This article implies that the foreign Minister should only be concerned with 'matters involving treaties with foreign nations'. However, conducting spy/embassy missions have no treaties involved. So one could conclude that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has not the final decision in these missions.

The question remains, who is?
Considering that Article D also states the following:

The Executive branch is responsible for determining 
and implementing the will of the People.

I cannot conclude otherwise than that the Executive Branch as a whole is responsible for spy/embassy missions. Given the fact that the President is the leader of the Executive Branch, it's also his right to decide whether or not to conduct spy/embassy missions.

I would like to thank Ashburnham for bringing the attention of the court to this situation. I would personally recommend to change article D.2 so that this situation, which is, as you stated, according to common sense a Foreign Affairs issue, will be resolved.

 

[Strider]

I wish to request a Judicial Review much like the above.

Who has the authority to organize placement of Spaceship parts?

 

[ravensfire]

Justice Ravensfire looks up from his notes on the current Judicial Review.
"Are there any other citizens with input on this matter?"
He poises his pen over a pad of paper, ready to take notes.

 

[blackheart]

The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread.

This would make it so that the president would have to follow the instruction of each minister. So, we're back to where we started from, confusion.

I think it is high time that each ministry's roles are solidified and the borders clearly drawn.

 

[mhcarver]

The key question here is who has the power in Embassy and espionage missions. Logically one would think the foreign affairs minister would have this power, however the constitution gives the foreign minister the powers of :

Article D.2
The minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible for matters
involving treaties with foreign nations, as prescribed by law

The actions of espionage and establishing an agency cannot be considered matters of treaty si therefore the foreign minister does not have the power to order espionage missions or embassies

THis leads to the question of who does have that power


My honorable colleage CJ Gert-Janl ruled that the final say on these matters goes to the president , I agree with him on this matter for a different reason, he cited article D , I my opinion DG5JR27 said that instructions not posted leaves the DP with the authority to issue instructions for that office and since nobody can legally post instructions on the abovementioned matters, their jurdisticion falls directly under that of the president.

Summary
The deciscion on embassies and espionage is soley in the hands of the president. however I would strongly reccomend this be altered to give the powers to the FA minister

-Mhcarver
Office of the Judge Advocate

 

[Cyc]

What? Now we want a detailed Constitution? I thought everyone was against that. It seems to me that Japanatica could have used The Three Books as a model of want needed to be addressed as far as responsibilities of our Leaders. But now, we find the "small footprint" Constitution and supporting laws lacking in guidance. What a shame. Seems to me that with a bit of common sense applied to previous documents, most of these questions could be answered.

With this question about espionage, the Constitution doesn't help. We can conduct espionage in a foreign nation whether we have a treaty with them or not. But espionage is merely covert operations in a foreign country, therefore you would think that the Foreign Affairs Office would handle it. But what is the purpose of our espionage? I would think most of it would be for Military operations, therefore the MA would be heavily involved in deciding which cities to investigate, or which nations to plant a spy in. I would think checking on Wonders would be a major concern for investigating cities,therefore the Cultural Minister would play a big part in the espionage game. And of course, monitoring Space Ship production of other countries is an important reason for having spies located in the Capitals of foreign nations, therefore the Science Advisor would want to have a say in the placement of spies in order to help project future research paths.

So, I say it is not up to the President. Quit piling things on top of the Prez's shoulders. This espionage game covers many different facets of Foriegn Affairs. All of which are entwined around the common goal of obtaining information for the benefit of the nation. So at this point, I would say any Leader can initiate a call for espionage in any foreign country for any reason supported by their Department. Rather than funneling these calls through one person, such as the FA Minister or the President, it would probably be more efficient for each Leader desiring a bit of under-cover investigation to start a discussion thread about it and then create a detailed poll asking permission to move forward with discussed options. All of this is vaguely covered in the Constitution now, although it's hard to see.

In other words, there is no ONE person in charge. Just use the normal procedures to collect information and obtain the WOTP. That should cover the question.

 

[gert-janl]

You are completely right, however, the question of the Judicial Review was who was in the end responsible. Of course anyone could start discussions about a possible spy/embassy mission. That is a right of the people, as also stated in Article N, which allows anyone anything not strictly forbidden by the Constitution.

In my ruling however, I tried to point out that the current wording of Article D should be a little more flexible. Instead of the words 'involving treaties with foreign nations' possibly the words 'involving relations with foreign nations' could be better. However, this amendment should be discussed by the House of Representatives and it is not up to me to change the Constitution here.

In response to Strider I would say this is merely a co-operation between local governors and the minister of Science, since space-ship parts falls under tech-acquisition untill it is discovered and then it becomes a small wonder.

As a last word I would like to remind everyone, just as Cyc just did, that we all wanted a short non-detailed constitution. That means we can't cover anything, and that we have to use our common sense most of the time.