Term 6 - Judiciary

[ravensfire]

No, it really doesn't.

Article C defines the broad types of decisions that are possible. C.4 then allows lower laws to restrict or even do away with certain types of decisions. Note the first point in there - Initiative must always be allowed.

Essentially, we could actually do away with impeachments (recalls) entirely, and still be in compliance with Article 4. What we can't do is remove Initiatives - that MUST be permitted.

-- Ravensfire

 

[GeorgeOP]

Here are some changes which were made in the Judicial Procedures from last term.

Also, it was made clear that the Defendant has a right to defend himself. The old rules mentioned PD must represent him unless he appoins someone to defend him, and I wanted it clear that he can represent himself.

Unless someone can present new evidence or arguments that weren't brought forth from Term 1, I rule that 6-2 has no merit and should be removed from the docket.

 

[DaveShack]

Sigma's request for Judicial Review of an amendment on the DP Pool is accepted and designated case 6-4. The initial completion target for this review is 3 days, and citizens may comment on any legal issues with the amendment here in the Judiciary thread.

 

[DaveShack]

Several posts here and in other threads have set target time frames for citizen comment or rulings from the Court. While the Court strives for speedy resolution of all matters, this does not mean that any item should not receive full consideration. Target times may be extended on any reasonable request.

 

[Black_Hole]

No, it really doesn't.

Article C defines the broad types of decisions that are possible. C.4 then allows lower laws to restrict or even do away with certain types of decisions. Note the first point in there - Initiative must always be allowed.

Essentially, we could actually do away with impeachments (recalls) entirely, and still be in compliance with Article 4. What we can't do is remove Initiatives - that MUST be permitted.

-- Ravensfire

wow, thats the second time I missed that part of the article, you would think I would learn...
Thanks for clearing that up ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

wow, thats the second time I missed that part of the article, you would think I would learn...
Thanks for clearing that up ravensfire

Does that mean you're ok with 6-3 being decided as no-merit?

 

[Black_Hole]

Does that mean you're ok with 6-3 being decided as no-merit?

yes I am
xcl

 

[donsig]

3. Required complete disclosure of conflicts between proposed laws and existing laws.

In the case where a conflict is found with existing law, all conflicts must be identified, to simplify and expedite the ability of the sponsor of a proposed law to resubmit with corrections.
​

This is a dangerous thing to implement and I see it as a backlash stemming from the Strider Amendment. I really see no point in subjecting the judiciary to going over every proposed amendment with a fine tooth comb. The judiciary is here to ensure that new laws do not conflict with established laws. Once a confllict is found the judiciary's job is done. The judiciary was not set up to be the law writers of our land. Justices can certainly help to draft laws but that should not be an official part of their duties.

No, it really doesn't.

Article C defines the broad types of decisions that are possible. C.4 then allows lower laws to restrict or even do away with certain types of decisions. Note the first point in there - Initiative must always be allowed.

Essentially, we could actually do away with impeachments (recalls) entirely, and still be in compliance with Article 4. What we can't do is remove Initiatives - that MUST be permitted.

-- Ravensfire

Article C.4 does NOT allow any of the decision types listed in earlier clauses to be done away with entirely. The misinterpretation of C.4 is one of the biggest problems we have. It is not a blanket safety valve clause that allows us to ignore other parts of the constitution. Recall is a constitutionally guaranteed decision type. Lower laws can specify the procedures to be followed in order to recall officials and these procedures can restrict the implementation of recalls but cannot do away with them. I've said more than once that the non-impeachability of the judiciary is unconstitutional. I think I also ruled in a JR that it was constitutional to recall a single member of the Tri (though that was a minority decison).

C.4 is a safety net for the citizen's initiative, and states no restrictions can be placed on the use of the initiative.

 

[ravensfire]

I've said more than once that the non-impeachability of the judiciary is unconstitutional. I think I also ruled in a JR that it was constitutional to recall a single member of the Tri (though that was a minority decison).

Yes, it was a minority decision. The majority disagreed with you, and accepted the law as constitutional using C.4.

If you don't like it, change it. Otherwise, respect the rulings as you expect others to respect the majority rulings you are a part of.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

The citizen discussion thread for case 6-1 has been open for several days, with the last substantial comment being approximately 3 days ago. Justices may now make any final statements or ask any questions they might have, or post their ruling.

The question as rephrased by JA Black_Hole and then re-rephrased by me:

Does Article B section 2c of the constitution give all citizens the right of eligibility to hold all offices at all times?

Stated in the negative, does Article B Section 2c of the Constitution prohibit lower forms of law from placing restrictions on the number or type of office a given citizen may be eligible to hold at a given point in time?

For reference, the original case and Constitution Article is reprinted here. The bold italic is a "typo" pointed out by Black_Hole in the discussion thread.

Case 6-1
Article B - Citizens
2. All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
c. The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office

Question: Does Article B section 2c of the Constitution mean that a citizen has the right to be eligible to hold any office at a given point in time, or does it mean the right to be eligible to hold some office?

 

[DaveShack]

This is a dangerous thing to implement and I see it as a backlash stemming from the Strider Amendment. I really see no point in subjecting the judiciary to going over every proposed amendment with a fine tooth comb. The judiciary is here to ensure that new laws do not conflict with established laws. Once a confllict is found the judiciary's job is done. The judiciary was not set up to be the law writers of our land. Justices can certainly help to draft laws but that should not be an official part of their duties.

Is this dangerous because it forces the Judiciary to do a good job, or because it will help would-be lawmakers make changes that they would find impossible to make without this type of citizen-friendly service?

On the Judicial workload question, we members of this term's court can decide ourselves whether we will feel too much burden from fully reviewing proposed laws, to the best of our ability. My fellow Justices can agree to remove this provision from the procedures, if they think it's too much trouble.

The alternative, which was very successfully exercised by prior courts, of picking at proposed laws just long enough to find a (questionable) conflict is bad for the game. It leaves the poor citizens to flop around in a vain attempt to anticipate and satisfy all possible judicial whims. It is far better to tell the citizens exactly what is wrong with a proposed law, and thus the opportunity to fix all problems in one iteration, than it is to tie up proposed legislation ad infinitum.

 

[DaveShack]

On Donsig's objection to using Constituion Article C.4 to "eliminate a decision type", I would like to point out Article C.2, with emphasis added.

C.2 The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered.​

This is a case where the Citizens had a very specific intent, and they very wisely ratified a Constitution text which says exactly what the citizens wanted, in words with meanings which clearly state that intent.

The power of the people can be delegated. This does not say must be delegated. Under this Constitution, we could ratify a Code of Laws which does not delegate any of the powers of the people. Such a Democracy would be a pure Democracy, in which every single decision must be made by the people, e.g. polled. Well, technically that would be the one decision type that is required, Initiative.

In one or more of the following ways. This clearly means that a lower form of law does not have to implement every decision type listed. In fact, it must only implement one of the decision types -- Initiative, as listed in C.4.

The intent is there, a very precise wording is there. It says what it means, and means what it says.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Public Defender Ruling on JR 6-1 : Right to hold an office

Article B2c of our constitution gives every citizen the right to hold office. However, it does not say that every citizen has a right to any office. More specifically, it only gives the right to be elgible to hold some office. As long as every citizen is elgible to hold some offical office, any restrictions in our Code of Laws are valid. For example, we could pass a law saying that GeorgeOP can only be Public Defender, or we could pass a law saying that only GeorgeOP can be Public Defender. Both laws would still allow every citizen to be elgible to hold some office.

As long as every citizen has the ability to be elgible for at least one office, any restrictions in the Code of Laws are valid under the Constitution.

 

[Black_Hole]

Judge Advocate Ruling on JR 6-1
Article B.2.C of the constitution:

The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office

Gives all citizens the right to be eligible for public office.

There are two restricitons placed on this in the constitution:

Section 6 Term Limits

A) Term Limits
I. Holder of Triumvirate and Cabinet offices are affected by term limits.

II. No one may be elected to the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office for more that two terms consecutively.

III. After serving two terms in the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office a Citizen must wait at least one term before running for the same office but may run for and hold any other office.

B) Limits to Holding Office
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.

The constitutional law is written generally, so the article guarantees all citizens to be eligible for all offices. For example, does being able to hold one office fulfill your right? In my opinion the answer is no. The idea of being able to hold public office is to be able to hold whatever office you desire.
Code of Laws amendments modify your right to be eligible to hold office and as such these restrictions are unconstitional.
The Code of Laws may not modify constitutional rights in any way unless the constituiton specifically allows lower forms of law to modify it.

Conclusion
Article 6 (Term Limits) and Article 8.B of the CoL (Restrictions on holding multiple offices) are unconstitutional.
And all other code of laws amendments that may be ratified or that are currently in the code of laws that modify a citizen's right to hold office are unconstitutional.

 

[dutchfire]

While you're at it, I've got another question:

Section 6 Term Limits

A) Term Limits
I. Holder of Triumvirate and Cabinet offices are affected by term limits.

II. No one may be elected to the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office for more that two terms consecutively.

III. After serving two terms in the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office a Citizen must wait at least one term before running for the same office but may run for and hold any other office.

It clearly says "Elected". If the situation were this way: Someone has been Minister of Science for 2 terms, then he may not be elected again the next term according to the current Code of Laws. But if there's noone running for the position, may he be appointed by the president after election time?

 

[DaveShack]

The question before the court is whether Article B section 2 gives every citizen the right to be eligible for every office at all times.

Article B - Citizens
2. All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
c. The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office

Looking strictly at the Constitution excerpt as written, there is nothing here saying a citizen must be eligible to hold any public office. If the framers of the Constitution had wanted this section to be interpreted in that way, they would have written this section to say

c. The Right to be Eligible to hold any Public Office

Looking at Democracy Game precedent, many, perhaps even most, prior games have restricted the number of offices a citizen can hold at one time. The framers of this Constitution were aware of this, and they took special care to allow for such a possibility by intentionally leaving the word any out of the article. Likewise, the Real Life Democratc (loosely defined) governments which the Democracy Game uses as its foundation also allow and often require restrictions on eligibility for specific offices. For example, the United States Constitution specifically restricts eligibility for the office of President to citizens, and even more strictly to native born citizens.

I therefore find that:

The requirement of Article B section 2C is satisfied by any lower form of government which ensures that every citizen is eligible to hold some office at any given point in time, except for restrictions placed by forum rules.

 

[DaveShack]

The Court has ruled 2-1 that Article B section 2c requires that every citizen must be eligible to hold some office, but that this does not extend to the point of requiring every citizen to be eligible to hold any office.

 

[dutchfire]

While you're at it, I've got another question:


It clearly says "Elected". If the situation were this way: Someone has been Minister of Science for 2 terms, then he may not be elected again the next term according to the current Code of Laws. But if there's noone running for the position, may he be appointed by the president after election time?

Can I have a JR on this? Possibly before the end of this term.

 

[DaveShack]

Dutchfire's request for a JR is accepted. I'm a little busy right now, will update with the law citation and formal question after a while, unless one of my colleagues gets to it first.

 

[donsig]

Yes, it was a minority decision. The majority disagreed with you, and accepted the law as constitutional using C.4.

If you don't like it, change it. Otherwise, respect the rulings as you expect others to respect the majority rulings you are a part of.

-- Ravensfire

Are you suggesting that because I'm in the minority I should either change my opinion to conform with the majority or remain silent on the issue? I don't see expressing my opinion as disrespecting majority rulings.

Is this dangerous because it forces the Judiciary to do a good job, or because it will help would-be lawmakers make changes that they would find impossible to make without this type of citizen-friendly service?

Your opinion of a good job by the judiciary and my opinion of a good job by the judiciary are two different things. The judiciary was never meant to be a law writing body. Making it a law writing body is dangerous because it puts the judiciary in the position of stake holder where certain proposed amendments are concerned. It is not a good idea to have the people judging whether proposed laws conflict with current laws also be the main ones writing the laws. (That's as bad as having a CJ decide whether his appointment as CJ was valid. )

It is also a bad idea simply because we do not all agree on what constitutes a conflict. (If we did we wouldn't need a judiciary, would we?) We've already had a couple minority decisions which shows right there that citizens do not magically beging to think alike just because they sit on the bench at the same time. That does not even take into account the differences citizens have had with the judiciary.