Term 5 Judiciary

[robboo]

Mr. CJ

Could you start an absence investigation into our censor. It has been 7 days since his last apearance according to his profile. There are currently many polls that need his attention. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

[ice2k4]

Chief Justice sir,

Is it possible when can get an investigation on the Minister of the Interior (appointed by president) GolablOpressor. He has not made a thread for his office, and when I checked, his last post in any demogame forum is April 30th. I don't see a post by him in the abscence registry either. Thank you in advance for your concern.

-Ice2k4 of Auda City, Governor

 

[donsig]

Mr. CJ

Could you start an absence investigation into our censor. It has been 7 days since his last apearance according to his profile. There are currently many polls that need his attention. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Chief Justice sir,

Is it possible when can get an investigation on the Minister of the Interior (appointed by president) GolablOpressor. He has not made a thread for his office, and when I checked, his last post in any demogame forum is April 30th. I don't see a post by him in the abscence registry either. Thank you in advance for your concern.

-Ice2k4 of Auda City, Governor

As far as I can tell there is nothing in our constitution or code of laws guiding us as to how to handle absences. There is nothing in our current judicial procedures concerning absence investigations. (That section was removed as it had no legal basis.) The simple disappearance of an official does not render the office vacant. I would remind citizens and officials alike that impeachment (recall) is generally an option. Not fulfilling the appointed duties of an office (for whatever reason) would seem an appropriate use of our impeachment procedure. This would put the onus on our citiezens to decide if an office has been abandoned. The judiciary be put into a position of deciding whether an office has been abandoned.

 

[robboo]

dumb question...what happened to the 7 day rule that was used ealier in this game. it was against on of our judges..verra( spelling? ) but she turned out to be around. Also it was used on Alphawolf...

 

[ice2k4]

Well, without the MoI, I took decisions into my own hands on what to build in Auda City. I don't care much if the MoI is gone, but when he comes back, I don't want to be taking flak.

(I changed build queue from barracks to granary.)

 

[donsig]

dumb question...what happened to the 7 day rule that was used ealier in this game. it was against on of our judges..verra( spelling? ) but she turned out to be around. Also it was used on Alphawolf...

[winces at the sound of the name of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named]

The Absence Investigation that you refer to was a part of the judicial procedures of previous terms. In reviewing our constitution and code of laws before adopting judicial procedures for this term I realized there is no law (or rule) in place to support a judicial absence investigation. I therefore left that out of this term's judicial procedures.

 

[ice2k4]

No arguement here. Since the censor is not around, and the CoL does not specify who should post an impeachment poll, I'm starting one now for the MoI.

 

[donsig]

No arguement here. Since the censor is not around, and the CoL does not specify who should post an impeachment poll, I'm starting one now for the MoI.

I think any citizen (or official) can post an impeachment poll.

 

[DaveShack]

Evidently someone messed up when drafting the omnibus amendment for vacancies, because the 7 day rule was dropped by that amendment.

 

[DaveShack]

It has now been 8 days since case 5-2 was added to the docket. Does the court plan to rule this term, or leave it for yet another new Judiciary to try to answer?

 

[donsig]

The original question put before the court in this case is:

Does this mean that there must be 72 hours between the request for aplications and the appointment of officials, or does the 72 hour wait only apply for people who want a second job?

Section 8.C of our Code of Laws is pertinent. I will repost here part of the ruling I made on this same question last term:

Again, only subsections III, IV and V (dealing with cabinet, gubernatorial and judicial vacancies respectively) mention a 72 hour period. It must be assumed that this period was included to give citizens ample time to respond to the required request. Therefore, the President or Governor's Council does indeed have to wait for the 72 hour period to elapse before making an appointment.

It is my ruling that YES, there must be 72 hours between the request for aplications and the appointment of officials regardless of who is appointed.

donsig
Chief Justice

PS: I urge the JA and PD to post their respective rulings on this case as soon as possible.

 

[GenMarshall]

Thinking about this hard for a moment

 

[DaveShack]

Fine, I'm not going to appoint anyone else this term. In fact, I think I'll exercize the Presidential perogrative of playing all turns myself, and schedule the next play session for May 30th.

[Edit]
Explanation: A correct answer in disagreement with my position would be OK. An answer that you think the law doesn't agree with what the author intended (e.g. the language is incorrect because we meant there to be a 3 day waiting period) would be OK. But an incorrect answer which breaks the rules of the language is never acceptable. I won't allow you to do that under any circumstances. And don't give me a line of bull about there being two correct ways to read this law. One is right and the other is wrong.

Since I can't make you rule the way it should be ruled, I'll just make the rule immaterial by ensuring it never goes into effect

 

[GenMarshall]

Does this mean that there must be 72 hours between the request for aplications and the appointment of officials, or does the 72 hour wait only apply for people who want a second job?

I have gone back and I have thought about this very very hard on this one.

I looked into section 8, paragraphs III, IV and V. And I have came to a conclusion that Yes there should be 72 hours between the request for applicants and the appointment of officals before the President can eather find a citizen who is qualified in the president's view to appoint if there are no applicants or chose from the applicants to apoint. In otherwords, Yes, it means that there must be 72 hours between the call of applicants (request for applicants) and the appointment officals. However it would not apply for people in search of a second job.

Simply stated. My answers to the following:
Question 1: Yes
Question 2: No

 

[donsig]

I have gone back and I have thought about this very very hard on this one.

I looked into section 8, paragraphs III, IV and V. And I have came to a conclusion that Yes there should be 72 hours between the request for applicants and the appointment of officals before the President can eather find a citizen who is qualified in the president's view to appoint if there are no applicants or chose from the applicants to apoint. In otherwords, Yes, it means that there must be 72 hours between the call of applicants (request for applicants) and the appointment officals. However it would not apply for people in search of a second job.

Thank you for posting your decision on this case. Just waiting on Cyc's decision.

 

[DaveShack]

This is very confusing to me. The 72 hours does not apply to people who are in search of a 2nd job, but it does apply to people who don't have a job?

The clarification was less clear than the original.

 

[GenMarshall]

This is very confusing to me. The 72 hours does not apply to people who are in search of a 2nd job, but it does apply to people who don't have a job?

The clarification was less clear than the original.

Let me clear this up. I admit that the question is confusing but here is my take on the subject.

I feel that the 72 hours do apply to both people in search of a second job as well as people who dont have a second job. I'll edit my previous post to reflect uppon that.

Also, please dont get snippy (Though this is just a general gut feeling from me with your stance against the Judicary as well as the tone I interperated) at me since I myself am trying to untangle the whole complex issue .

 

[Cyc]

Does this mean that there must be 72 hours between the request for aplications and the appointment of officials, or does the 72 hour wait only apply for people who want a second job?

Ok, I'm back. Sorry gentlemen, I've been busy at work.

I'm not real pleased with the wording of this question. It seems a pretty vague request for the definition of law that is rarely used and doesn't make a big dent into the meat of things. If there had been more of a discussion of the issue, or perhaps we could have gotten the question reworded, I feel this could have been handled better. But let us flounder here and use more words than necessary to define this impasse.

DaveShack's explanation of the situation was spot on. No bout adoubt it. This passage is not only a lightweight law, but it is also easily understood. A 72 hour period is required to allow any qualified citizen to apply for the position. This 72 hours is a safety buffer, allowing even the slowest of us an attempt at getting appointed to a position we desire. It also allows the President or Governor (whoever) time to mull over their decision prior to appointing someone. It's a needed and useful time period that's intent is obvious. The wording in this passage clearly states it's purpose.

So the answer to the first part of the question is YES, and the answer to the second part of the question is NO. And never the twain shall meet.

 

[GenMarshall]

Ok, I'm back. Sorry gentlemen, I've been busy at work.

Nice to see you back

I'm not real pleased with the wording of this question. It seems a pretty vague request for the definition of law that is rarely used and doesn't make a big dent into the meat of things. If there had been more of a discussion of the issue, or perhaps we could have gotten the question reworded, I feel this could have been handled better. But let us flounder here and use more words than necessary to define this impasse.

I agree, I admit that I had to sit down and figure it out. Perhaps the wording of his question could have been placed forward in a better form.

 

[DaveShack]

DaveShack's explanation of the situation was spot on.

All three of you disagreed with my explanation, don't see why you think it is spot on.

Suppose I already know who is going to be appointed, and the request for applicants is only a formality? Why then wait 3 days? The only way it's going to change who gets appointed is if I want to appoint someone who already has a position.