Term 5 Judiciary

[Cyc]

Can we maybe finish the process on the current amendment?

I'm waiting for a response to my analogy between this proposal and the CC procedures which have been in place virtually forever. Either we've been screwing up the CC process for almost as long as I've been in the DemoGame, or it's perfectly OK to start off with a limitation and then lift it when a condition is met.

I must say, DS, the last two analogies you've made have been far beneath your normal level of expertise. I won't get into the prior one, but this one defeats itself right from the begining.

First off, the CC procedure that you try to quote asks for 2 and only two people to respond before ending. Once those two people have responded, the period of time reserved for them ends. Period. In your ammendment, only one person needs to apply and the 72 hour period ends. Very bad. Why can't you see this? I don't care what you meant it to mean. I care about what it says. Period.

My contention is that with the wording of this amendment, you are ending the 72 hour period after the first applicant applies and is appointed. This ends the chance of others who may qualify for the position to apply. If the President preps his/her favorite applicant before posting the vacancy notice, and clues that person into when the 72 hour period starts, that person can be the first to apply and be appointed immediately. This is a corruption of the system, as when the President appoints his favored applicant, the 72 hour period ends and no other citizens can apply.

This ammendment must change the wording of the appointment/ending of the 72 hour period to not violate the Constituion.

PD Cyc

 

[DaveShack]

This ammendment must change the wording of the appointment/ending of the 72 hour period to not violate the Constituion.

PD Cyc

Please quote the Article that it conflicts with and give reasoning how it conflicts.

 

[DaveShack]

Have you asked for a judicial review of the CC process?

Of course not, it would give you another opportunity to change the law from the bench.

 

[DaveShack]

Oh, by the way I'm still waiting for the other two justices.

 

[Cyc]

Please quote the Article that it conflicts with and give reasoning how it conflicts.

If you're going to get all pissy about it King DS, you can look the Law up yourself. I really don't need to take any of your crap in this thread, until you make a formal request. And we both know you're not going to allow us heathens to change the law from the bench, so can it, senor.

Get a grip, DS

 

[DaveShack]

That was a serious request. When I declare a new amendment in conflict with another existing law, I quote which law it conflicts with and explain what the conflict is. Didn't think it was too much to ask.

Just saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. I require proof, as any citizen should. Since you've been unwilling to provide actual proof, I have to conclude you have none.

 

[Cyc]

JR # 5 - 3

The proposed ammendment in it's current form prematurely terminates the required 72 - hour waiting period, designed to allow applicants not holding office to apply. With the wording setup the way it is, any applicants wishing to apply after an appointment during the 72 - hour period are denied their Constitutional right to be eligible to hold office.

In three different sections of the proposed ammendment it is stated that a 72 - period must be afforded to eligible applicants.

III. Cabinet Vacancies
IIIB. If there is no deputy, the President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.
IV. Governor Vacancies
IVA. The Governors Council must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Council within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Council may appoint any citizen to the office.
V. Judicial Vacancies
VA. The President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.

It's the same in each instance.

The section that cements the wrong-doing is found later in the ammendment.

B. Limits to Holding Office
III. No citizen may be appointed to a 2nd office unless no citizen without a position is interested in the empty office. The appointing official must announce a deadline for citizens to indicate their interest in the office, which shall not be less than 72 hours after the time the deadline is announced. This deadline is used solely for the purpose of demonstrating no citizen is interested in the office for the purpose this subsection. At any time that a citizen without an office expresses interest in the vacancy, the deadline of this section is considered fulfilled, a citizen without an office may be appointed immediately, and no person already holding an office may be appointed to this vacancy.

This blurb totally denies eligibility of other applicants to the position. Even though you wrote this passage in light of efficiency and convenience, you are dening others their Constitutional right.

 

[GenMarshall]

JR # 5 - 3
In reading, the proposed ammendment terminates the suggested 72 hour waiting time which serves to allow applicans who are currently not holding an office to apply. The wording of this proposal it states that any applicant wishing to apply after the appointment during the 72 hour timeline would be denyed the consitutional rights and privlages to be eligible to hold office.

Here are the sources that I have came up with.

III. Cabinet Vacancies
IIIB. If there is no deputy, the President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.
IV. Governor Vacancies
IVA. The Governors Council must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Council within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Council may appoint any citizen to the office.
V. Judicial Vacancies
VA. The President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.

Each of the statements I have bolded and underlined stated that these leaders must request that any interested citizen who does not hold an office to contact the respected leader.

B. Limits to Holding Office
III. No citizen may be appointed to a 2nd office unless no citizen without a position is interested in the empty office. The appointing official must announce a deadline for citizens to indicate their interest in the office, which shall not be less than 72 hours after the time the deadline is announced. This deadline is used solely for the purpose of demonstrating no citizen is interested in the office for the purpose this subsection. At any time that a citizen without an office expresses interest in the vacancy, the deadline of this section is considered fulfilled, a citizen without an office may be appointed immediately, and no person already holding an office may be appointed to this vacancy.

This I feel states that the statement denies any eligibility of any other applicants to this possition Thus denying others of their consitutional right. To make this ruling clear, I am against the amendmen. This was a hard desision to make, but I have done a lot of spiritual praying to God to grant me serenity in this decision since I do feel like Nobody when he was CJ and be faced with the entire demogame crying blood against Nobody.

 

[DaveShack]

Thank you for (finally ) bothering to answer. We could have had a discussion on this point right from the start, if anyone had bothered to bring it up -- instead y'all pulled the "we're the god-like judiciary and it doesn't matter why we ruled the way we do" trick.

There is no point in further argument, due to the current date. However, I can't resist the urge to teach. Maybe others who want to be Justices can learn from these words.

Everyone is eligible to hold office. My proposed amendment does not affect eligibility. All one needs to do is accept a nomination at the once a month event called the elections. These days, that's a virtual lock on getting an office.

Everyone who manages to get an application in before an appointment is made is eligible for the appointment. In fact, everyone who doesn't hold an office is eligible to be appointed. Nowhere does it say only people who apply can be appointed. What gave you the idea that the appointing individual can't just grab someone from the citizen's registry and say "you're it, tell me if you don't want it?"

Once again, for those who are slow, the words of the current law, words of the amendment, meaning of the current law, and meaning of the amendment all say the exact same thing. We want people without an office to be eligible to be appointed -- and therefore, people with an office (who by definition are already eligible to hold office given they do hold office) aren't eligible to be appointed unless there is nobody else interested, because they shouldn't be able to hog a 2nd office and deny someone else that eligibility.

 

[donsig]

Once again, for those who are slow, the words of the current law, words of the amendment, meaning of the current law, and meaning of the amendment all say the exact same thing. We want people without an office to be eligible to be appointed -- and therefore, people with an office (who by definition are already eligible to hold office given they do hold office) aren't eligible to be appointed unless there is nobody else interested, because they shouldn't be able to hog a 2nd office and deny someone else that eligibility.

Once more, the words quoted above are NOT in the current law or the proposed law. If they were we wouldn't be having a JR because there could be no doubt about what the law means. A simple law stating non-office holders must be appointed would suffice. You want to encourage new office holders but don't want to take the step needed to ensure we don't have dual office holders. Your refusal to take that step results in the monstrosity of a law that has been proposed. In order to encourage new office holders you attempt to tie the appointing officer's hands by imposing a 72 hour wait to be sure no one who doesn't have an office doesn't want it. But once you do that you open the can of worms brought up by Cyc. When you get right down to it it's a pointless law because if the appointing officer has already made up his mind on whom to appoint not only is the 72 moot but so is the call for applicants. Face it - it's a bad law. I'm still not sure if it's constitutional but I made up my mind long ago that I would not vote for this amendment.

Besides Cyc's objections there is the one CivGeneral brought up about the constitutionality of excluding current offcie holders. How we interpret the constitutional clause guaranteeing eligibility to hold office is key to how this JR should be interpreted. Obviously you (DaveShack) have chosen to interpret it in a general sense, i.e., that citizens are guaranteed to be eligible for an and so long as they are eligible for an office their constitutonal right is satisfied. If you'd take your blinders off you'd see that it is quite reasonable to look upon that clause in a different and more specific sense, in other words, that citizens are guaranteed eligibility for each specific office. Not only should we listen to what CivGeneral has to say on this we should look back through old JR rulings and see how a previous CJ invoked this clause to say term limits were unconstitutional.

I will post my official ruling on this JR tonight or tomorrow.

 

[DaveShack]

If we had been discussing this, the original amendment thread (for the one before mine) and the original judicial review would have been interesting points for discussion.

This was the ruling on the GeorgeOP amendment which added the infamous 72 hours in the first place.

C4DG1JR5 - Judge Advocate's review
The proposed amendment to the code of laws does not conflict with our constitution or non-amended / deleted sections of the code of laws.

The mock poll is unclear as to the sections of the code of laws being deleted and it is suggested the Chief Justice rectify this when posting the actual ratification poll.

donsig
Judge Advocate

If it wasn't a problem with the Constitution then, I have a hard time understanding why it's a problem now.

 

[donsig]

If it wasn't a problem with the Constitution then, I have a hard time understanding why it's a problem now.

The decision you quoted was the one that allowed the current law to be adopted, wasn't it? We've not yet said the current law is unconstitutional (though CivGeneral's reasoning would do that as would the other JR decision handed down by a previous CJ regarding term limits). The problem has been in the differing interpretations of the 72 hour clause of the law that was eventually ratified after the JR you quote.

As an aside, I think JRs are not the time for discussion. The discussion was supposed to happen before the law or amendment gets to the judiciary. This is not to say that the judiciary should bury it's head inthe sand and ignore all else while making a decision. I do think though that inputs should be limited to legal briefs posted for all to see in the judicial thread. Such a brief from you would be helpful to me in arriving at my decision. But it should be based on legal principles and arguments. You have an excellent opportunity to affect a CJ's decision since you can respond to the rulings already posted by the PD and JA.

 

[dutchfire]

Donsig could you please post the current Judicial Procedures in the thread Dave has started?

 

[donsig]

Donsig could you please post the current Judicial Procedures in the thread Dave has started?

I think I put a link to the current procedures in that thread. I'll check now bacause I wanted to read that thread anyway.

 

[donsig]

Clause 8.B.III of the proposed amendment states: No citizen may be appointed to a 2nd office unless no citizen without a position is interested in the empty office.. This disqualifies a citizen who is otherwise eligible to hold the office. Such a disqualification conflicts with article B.2.c of our constitution which guarantees our citizens The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office.

I find the amendment ineligible for ratification due to a conflict with article B.2.c of our constitution.

 

[Cyc]

Again DS, you're analogies amaze me. They make no sense to the point at hand, only to you and those that follow you blindly. They are the ramblings of someone that has a last attempt point to drive home.

Again, you post in the Judicial thread to insult the Justices. Grow up.

If you wanted a discussion of you great ammendment, then you should have not posted the mock poll in the Judicial thread. It belongs in a discussion thread. That is where the 24 hour waiting period is supposed to be. If you want things done the right way, then you have to do your end in the right way also. Quit whining.

And last, you started your Court a day early. I realize you don't need laws and rules in your tiny world, but the rest of us like to use them here. Term VI starts on the 1st of June. Get a grip.

As this Court's session is still in play, I would like to thank you for endlessly wasting this Court's time.

 

[DaveShack]

If you wanted a discussion of you great ammendment, then you should have not posted the mock poll in the Judicial thread. It belongs in a discussion thread. That is where the 24 hour waiting period is supposed to be.

What, like this discussion thread?

How about this discussion thread, where the original meaning of 72 hours was discussed?

Perhaps this court could have held an actual discussion on the questions facing it, like seen in this discussion on a JR by a previous court.

I would like to thank you for endlessly wasting this Court's time.

You're welcome. No stone shall be left unturned.

 

[donsig]

DaveShack, I have been consistent in saying the judiciary must make ruling based on the actual wording of a law under review. If the wording is sufficient to render a decision then the intent of the law does not enter the question. It is not the judiciary's job to fix poorly written laws.