Term 6 - Judiciary

[ravensfire]

Far from it, donsig.

You do, however, expect others to respect certain majority rulings while you do not respect other majority rulings.

-- Ravensfire

 

[GeorgeOP]

What is next on the docket? We made one decision and I'd like to move on to the next one.

 

[DaveShack]

Case 6-4, this amendment review requested by Sigma, is next.

Dear Judiciary,

My amendment to the Designated Players section has had ample discussion, and the mock poll has been posted for over 24 hours with no significant comments. Please review the amendment for its Constitutionality and post the amendment poll when ready.

You can find the amendment and mock poll in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=172096

Thanks,
Sigma

 

[DaveShack]

In summary, the Designated Player amendment which is being reviewed as 6-4 makes the following changes:

1. Specifies that ties in the play order are broken by the first accepted nomination.
2. Authorizes the President to appoint additional Designated Players, subject to a confirmation poll.
3. Allows a Designated Player to be removed, for cause, using a Recall procedure.
4. Replaces the Chain of Command system by automatic play session cancellation.
5. Places time limits within which the next play session must be scheduled.
6. Provides a mechanism for players to be skipped when they miss deadlines.
7. Allows a Triumvirate member to request a play session to be rescheduled.
8. Allows a DP to reschedule a play session.
9. Allows a play session to be cancelled.
10. Adds organization of the Designated Player Pool as a duty of the President.

This review is open for citizen comments on the topic of conflicts with existing laws while the Justices perform their review. Comments in favor of or opposition to the amendment should be made in the discussion thread, or if it is ruled to be valid for ratification, in the ratification poll thread.

The target timeframe for completing the review is 2 days from now.

 

[DaveShack]

Far from it, donsig.

You do, however, expect others to respect certain majority rulings while you do not respect other majority rulings.

-- Ravensfire

Actually, I don't see referring to a previous minority position as disrespectful towards the corresponding majority decision. I'm more impressed by rulings where each justice writes something different and includes reasoning than I am by rulings which look like regurgitated talking points devoid of reason. Contrary to appearances, the strongest kind of ruling is the 2-1 variety because it shows another viewpoint was considered and repudiated by the majority of the court.

 

[DaveShack]

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.

Asking the Justices to find all the conflicts they can in a proposed amendment is not making them a "law writing body". The ruling does not have to include what a law must say to be legal, it merely needs to point out what conflicts there are, and give a reason that it's a conflict.

It is also a bad idea simply because we do not all agree on what constitutes a conflict.

True enough -- but the full ruling by the court will only include those conflicts that a majority of the Justices agree with.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Public Defender Ruling on JR 6-4 : The Designated Player Code of Laws Ammendment

I find that this ammendment conforms to the constitution and can be sent to the Citizen's Assembly.

 

[Sigma]

No offense to you Dave or any member of the Judiciary, but the case for my amendment (case 6-4) was opened on June 1st, with a target completion date of 3 days later. It was then refocused on (as it is the only case open) on June 7th after the ruling on case 6-1, with a target date of 2 days later. One justice has posted his ruling, with the other two remaining silent. There has also been zero discussion on the amendment.

If you can, please expedite this process. I was hoping to have the amendment ratified by now.

Thanks.

 

[DaveShack]

The purpose of the delay was to provide time for the Judge Advocate to rule prior to moving on, but sufficient time has passed.

I have thoroughly reviewed the proposed amendment for Case 6-4, on laws pertaining to the Designated Player Pool. The proposed changes do not conflict with any existing laws, and the proper procedure has been followed. The amendment may proceed to a confirmation vote.

The Public Defender having ruled, the necessary two Justices have agreed the amendment may proceed to a vote. The Judge Advocate may still post a ruling to be included in the official log.

 

[Black_Hole]

Judge Advocate Ruling - JR 6-4

Sorry it was a moderately large amendment, however I found no conflicts with existing law and the procedures defined in the Code of Laws for amendment were followed. This amendment may now go onto a vote by the citizen assembly

 

[donsig]

Asking the Justices to find all the conflicts they can in a proposed amendment is not making them a "law writing body". The ruling does not have to include what a law must say to be legal, it merely needs to point out what conflicts there are, and give a reason that it's a conflict.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly IF we had a limit on the size of an amendment. Making a rule that says the judiciary MUST find all conflicts in a proposed amendment (and do it within three days) when we allow the whole CoL to be rewritten as an amendment is not a good idea. The bigger the amendment, the more potential conflicts there are and the more time needed to find them all. It's great to strive for that but it need not be mandatory.

 

[dutchfire]

About my question in posts 35 and 38 in this thread:
It just occured to me that I was appointed in term 5, not elected because I couldn't nominate myself. So does that mean I can get re-elected next term?

 

[DaveShack]

Case 6-5 is now up for consideration.

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?

Section 6.A.II seems pretty straightforward, and in my opinion would have stood alone and resulted in a "no merit" if Section 6.A.III were not present. However, 6.A.III seems to contain an internal conflict which is worthy of an official judicial review.

The relevant law is Section 6 and Article B which was just reviewed as case 6-1.

Question: Does Section 6.A.III of the Code of Laws prohibit a citizen from holding the same office for more than two terms, or does it merely "clarify" the prohibition in section 6.A.II on a citizen running for the same office more than two terms?

 

[GeorgeOP]

Public Defender Ruling on JR 6-5 : Running for Office

The wording says "no one may be elected" and "wait at least one term before running for". It does not say that the person can not hold the office, just that they can't run or be elected to office. So if Person X is voted into office for terms 1 and 2, he can't run for that office again. But he can be appointed to that office in term 3 if it becomes vacant.

 

[dutchfire]

And according to you, George, if he was appointed in term 1, he may be elected in term 2 and 3?
Right?

 

[Eklektikos]

To me it would appear that the law prohibits one from seeking election to an office which one has held for two consecutive terms regardless of the mechanism which resulted in one holding it.

i.e. if Joe Bloggs is appointed Secretary of State in term one and is then elected to the same office in term two he cannot run for SecState in term three.

That no mention of appointment to office is made suggests to me that Mr Bloggs could technically legitimately be appointed if the office of SecState was unfilled in term 3, but that it would be closer to the spirit of the law to select a different appointee if one of suitable quality could be found.

Not that my interpretation matters a damn here, but I figured I might as well offer my tuppence while passing through.

 

[Sigma]

Please allow me to direct the Judiciary to the following threads, where a debate about term limits and partial terms took place several months ago. They were initiated by Methos, who intended to write a CoL amendment but never got around to it. Even though these ideas were never amended into our CoL, they represented the view of the people at the time, and I'd like the Judiciary to keep them in mind when making their ruling.

Discussion Thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165337
Opinion Poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165641

 

[Black_Hole]

Please allow me to direct the Judiciary to the following threads, where a debate about term limits and partial terms took place several months ago. They were initiated by Methos, who intended to write a CoL amendment but never got around to it. Even though these ideas were never amended into our CoL, they represented the view of the people at the time, and I'd like the Judiciary to keep them in mind when making their ruling.

Discussion Thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165337
Opinion Poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165641

it doesn't matter what the citizens think about term limits, its about what the law says about term limits

 

[robboo]

The citizens can vote on a proposal to change the law like the one presented...so what they think ultimately matters.

 

[Black_Hole]

The citizens can vote on a proposal to change the law like the one presented...so what they think ultimately matters.

what they think about term limits doesn't matter for this JR, of course they can change the law if they wish, but we don't base rulings on what people want