Term 7 - Judiciary

[DaveShack]

Unofficial opinion on the cabinet change question:

I'd think the minister of culture discussion thread would be sufficient for the citizens forum. The law doesn't specify a particular method of announcing the Tri decree, but I'd recommend putting the decree in the tri government thread and then posting a link to it in the discussion. The officials affected by the change need to post their agreement before it would come into effect.

 

[DaveShack]

A question has been asked on who controls Cease Fire. This review is accepted and added to the docket as Case 7-1.

The relevant law is in the CoL:

Section 1 The Federal Government

A) The Legislative Branch
I. This branch consists of one house known as Citizens Assembly.

II. The Citizens Assembly shall consist of all citizens of the Nation. The Citizens Assembly shall be presided over by the Censor.

III. Only the Citizens Assembly may decide five things: Declare War/Make Peace/Alliance, to change civics, to begin construction on a Great Wonder/National Wonder/Project, a change in Taxes (the science/treasury/culture meter) greater that 10% more than once every 10 turns, and where to build new cities.

IIA. The Powers and Duties of the President
1. During the Turnchat the President, or a Representative of the President, may order the ending of play if continuing requires a decision to be made that can only be made by the Citizens Assembly. If the Turns are being played offline the Designated Player must end play if he is forced to make a decision that can only be made by the Citizens Assembly, provided that no vote on said decision has concluded.
2. The President will define a budget that all other official may not exceed without permission.
3. The President may change the Tax slider no more than 10% every 10 turns, with these exceptions:
A. The President may change taxes up to 30% in the event of budget shortfall: our nation losing money instead of gaining or staying even. However the President must see that a vote is brought on the matter before the next Game Session.
B. The turn on which a technology is discovered the President may change taxes by as much as 50% but must see that a vote is brought on the matter before the next Game Session.
4. The President is responsible for resolving disputes between officials.
5. The President has all powers not expressly given to another official and not retained by the Citizens Assembly.

Question: Is a Cease Fire the same as "Making Peace", and thus reserved as a power to the Assembly, or is it "not expressly given" and thus a responsibility of the President?

Justices will please rule on or before Tuesday July 11th.

 

[GeorgeOP]

I think another part of our CoL may also come into play here is under the SoS:

IIB. The Powers and Duties of the Secretary of State
1. The Secretary of State shall have control of the Foreign policy of our nation with the exception in the Declaration of War/Peace/Alliance and the trade of cities.

Does a Cease Fire count as a Declaration of Peace in the Code of Laws? Or is it simply a change of Foreign Policy decided by the Secratary of State? Or is it under the category of "other" for the President?

My thinking now (which may change before I make my official ruling):
A Cease Fire is not a Peace Treaty. Therefore the SoS may make a CF. I'm also thinking that it would also be ok for either the President or SoW to also request a Cease Fire. A CF can be cancelled anytime, so it is a decision that can be easily reversed by the Citizen's Assembly. Of course the CA may also ask for a CF.

 

[DaveShack]

What was I thinking?

Of course it could be foreign policy. So the new question for the JR is:

Does Cease Fire require a citizen's assembly vote as being a kind of peace treaty, or does it fall under the SoS responsibility of foreign policy, or is it a power not assigned and fall to the President?

Unofficially, in the absence of evidence that a cease fire is exactly the same as a peace treaty, I'm also leaning towards saying it's foreign policy.

 

[donsig]

Justices will please rule on or before Tuesday July 11th.

What's the big hurry?

 

[DaveShack]

What's the big hurry?

Just setting a timeline according to my preference to comply with "speedy". I presume that means you'd like to take a little more time?

 

[GeorgeOP]

It's been over 48 hours and no one has brought up arguments against me. I will give my official ruling now:

Ruling on Case 7-1:
A Cease Fire is not a Peace Treaty mentioned in the Code of Laws. Therefore, a Cease Fire may be signed without the approval of the Citizen's Assembly. It may be signed by either the President or the Secratary of State with strong imput from the Secratary of War. The Citizen's Assembly may also demand a Cease Fire without a Peace Treaty. The Citizen's Assembly may also demand to not have a Cease Fire.

Another clause that must be mentioned here is that the reverse is also true. Until there is a signed Peace Treaty, any member of the Triumvirate or the Citizen's Assembly may cancel the Cease Fire unless the Citizen's Assembly has specifically denied this action.

 

[donsig]

Just setting a timeline according to my preference to comply with "speedy". I presume that means you'd like to take a little more time?

It means I disagree with setting time limits for judicial decisions especially for a case like this. I don't even think this JR has merit since we're only being asked to get an official ruling for the future as robboo put it. Since there seems to be no emergency here, no pressing need to answer this question, if we step in with a ruling then what incentive is there for the citizenry to speak their minds via a proper law that addresses the gap that we now see exists? This is too much like legislating from the bench for my taste.

 

[robboo]

Based on Donsig remarks..of my request not having merit......I withdraw my request.

As of now..I will put it under the catch all for the president having all powers not delegated to other officials and declare a cease fire. Since Cease fire is not mentioned in the CoL then it must belong to the president.

It is my understanding based on Donsig's comments that if a law is not clear the citizens must fix it...so there wont be any consequences to my actions since no law exist at this time that forbid me from doing it. I was never asking to legislate...I was asking for legal clarification to determine if a cease fire was the same as a Peace treaty.

/why do I end up scratchig my head asking myself why these sorts of things only happen when donsig is on the judicary??

 

[DaveShack]

Saying it's improper to ask something "for the future" is a bit out of line. What alternative is there, taking action on an assumption what the law means and then possibly facing a CC if another player disagrees with that assumption? No, for the most part all JR's are "for the future", except the ones which would have been a CC but the requestor is too polite.

It is also highly irregular to say, indirectly, that it's not the Judiciary's place to decide what laws mean when the exact wording of the item being reviewed isn't found in the law. There is a current law and it does have a meaning. Our job is to help the citizens understand what that meaning is.

CJ Ruling

The question asks who is responsible for cease fire. Evidence was presented that cease fire is not the same as a peace treaty, so the provisions of CoL 1.A.III do not apply to a cease fire. This leaves a question of who, if anyone, is responsible in the executive branch.

Cease fire is accessed in the game via the diplomacy screen. In real life it is negotiated through diplomacy, so there is no disagreement between interpreting it in game interface terms vs. pseudo-government terms. CoL 1.B.IIB specifically assigns foreign affairs responsibility to the Secretary of State.

Ruling: According to CoL 1.B.IIB, Cease Fire is a responsibility of the Secretary of State.

 

[dutchfire]

Okay, that's 2-0 for Secretary of State responsible, so I've got to set up the discussion etc?

 

[robboo]

Dave..clarification.. you are saying that it is the SoS without the citizens polling.

 

[DaveShack]

Dave..clarification.. you are saying that it is the SoS without the citizens polling.

Hmm, not quite sure how to read that, but I'll take a guess.

All decisions organized by leaders have the same requirement to follow the people's decision, if there is one. Except for the "Five Things that Must be Polled TM", any game decision can be made in any of the ways specified in the Constitution. If a discussion results in overwhelming support then no poll would be needed, but an evenly divided or questionable support item should be polled.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Since there seems to be no emergency here, no pressing need to answer this question

There is thought of signing a Cease Fire right now. A government agent asked the court who's responsible for signing it, since there is no direct reference to a Cease Fire in the CoL. Since we had no other cases to hear, why not take the case on to help prevent future CCs on our citizens?

Although there is a pressing need from our Officials to answer this question, I agree that there should never be a time limit on making a ruling. However, the Chief Justice can ask for our ruling by a certain time especially if there doesn't seem to be any moving discussion. Dave is just trying to keep the judiciary moving, not trying to deny the ability to render verdicts.

 

[robboo]

Hmm, not quite sure how to read that, but I'll take a guess.

All decisions organized by leaders have the same requirement to follow the people's decision, if there is one. Except for the "Five Things that Must be Polled TM", any game decision can be made in any of the ways specified in the Constitution. If a discussion results in overwhelming support then no poll would be needed, but an evenly divided or questionable support item should be polled.

Sorry about that..I was watching the tour de france and trying to type and make sense. You answered it.

 

[donsig]

There is thought of signing a Cease Fire right now. A government agent asked the court who's responsible for signing it, since there is no direct reference to a Cease Fire in the CoL. Since we had no other cases to hear, why not take the case on to help prevent future CCs on our citizens?

There are many, many things that are not in the CoL or constitution. Should we go around making judicial reviews for everything there is no law for? Some of us have said the judiciary should be the last resort. Some of us have said the judiciary should not legislate. Yet, here we have a prime example of an official going to the judiciary first and the judiciary chomping at the bit to make law where none exists. Preventing future CCs is not a good reason for the judiciary to circumvent regular law making by the citizens. I understand the fear of CCs, for the system we have is a criminal one, based solely on accusations of wrong doing aimed at individuals. I've said many times we need a civil counterpart where we could focus on the legality of specific actions by office holders rather than focusing on the individual who did the action. We've never been able to evovle that sort of system because game after game we set up laws to play by then rarely ever modify them as we play. By accepting and ruling on cases such as these to fill in major gaps in the law we are perpetuating the no-law making culture we have.

Although there is a pressing need from our Officials to answer this question, I agree that there should never be a time limit on making a ruling. However, the Chief Justice can ask for our ruling by a certain time especially if there doesn't seem to be any moving discussion. Dave is just trying to keep the judiciary moving, not trying to deny the ability to render verdicts.

I do not see a pressing need for a decision. The game can proceed and cease fires signed or not without our making a ruling on this case. True, that does call for some of our leaders to actually stand up and take responsibility for their actions but I don't see that as a bad thing.

I see no point in keeping the judiciary moving just to keep it moving. I've had enough of hasty JRs and hasty decisons. The best decisions that have been rendered are those issued after the judiciary consults with each other before posting rulings. It is very sad that the current members of the court have decided to forego this valuable tradition.

Saying it's improper to ask something "for the future" is a bit out of line. What alternative is there, taking action on an assumption what the law means and then possibly facing a CC if another player disagrees with that assumption? No, for the most part all JR's are "for the future", except the ones which would have been a CC but the requestor is too polite.

I don't think it's out of line at all and I see nothing wrong with the course of action you outlined. I have enough faith in our system, our laws and our leaders to trust them to make those assumptions. There are always enough of us around who are willing to give free legal advice to anyone who asks for it. A good leader might even start a discussion about the assumption to get guidance from the citizens. To me that is preferable to getting guidance from the three citizens who happen to be warming the bench at the time. CC's are meant to deal with rule breakers and punish them accordingly. Even a guilty verdict in a CC does not automatically carry a punishment, since it may be deemed a warning is sufficient. Those too polite to file a CC and opt for the JR are the ones who want to be able to file a civil suit rather than a criminal one.

It is also highly irregular to say, indirectly, that it's not the Judiciary's place to decide what laws mean when the exact wording of the item being reviewed isn't found in the law. There is a current law and it does have a meaning. Our job is to help the citizens understand what that meaning is.

Ok, I'll say it directly then: it is not the judiciary's place to decide what laws mean when there is no law covering a specific issue. Our job is not to help citizens understand the meaning of non-existant laws. It is also not our job to make up laws to fill in the holes in the CoL. That right (and responsibility) lies with the citizens as a whole.

 

[DaveShack]

Ok, I'll say it directly then: it is not the judiciary's place to decide what laws mean when there is no law covering a specific issue. Our job is not to help citizens understand the meaning of non-existant laws. It is also not our job to make up laws to fill in the holes in the CoL. That right (and responsibility) lies with the citizens as a whole.

If it were true that there is no law then I would agree. However, doesn't it seem obvious that Cease Fire (the action in question) is part of Foreign Relations? We have a law for that -- it's not a matter of creating a new law, we only need identify the correct one. You might then say the JR has no merit because the answer is obvious, but I think we would serve the public better by just saying what the answer is.

Your own past position on the law has been that it should be intentionally vague so that it can be interpreted. We don't put the details of every single button click into the law, we state things in general principles and make it the Judiciary's job to determine which principle applies. Has your position changed?

Should our officials act as if there is no law, and as long as nobody complains they can do anything they want?

 

[donsig]

If it were true that there is no law then I would agree. However, doesn't it seem obvious that Cease Fire (the action in question) is part of Foreign Relations? We have a law for that -- it's not a matter of creating a new law, we only need identify the correct one. You might then say the JR has no merit because the answer is obvious, but I think we would serve the public better by just saying what the answer is.

If it's that obvious why do we need a full blown JR? This whole issue started as an informal question which was answered and then turned into a JR for future purposes. I have no qualms about citizens asking informal legal questions and the judiciary answering them. I think I even participated in this by asking the difference between a peace treaty and a cease fire. But once we make a ruling on a JR we give that ruling the force of law. We (the judiciary) should restrict our use of this legislative power.

Your own past position on the law has been that it should be intentionally vague so that it can be interpreted. We don't put the details of every single button click into the law, we state things in general principles and make it the Judiciary's job to determine which principle applies. Has your position changed?

My past (and current) position is that the constitution should be intentionally vague so we don't have to rewrite it everytime we start a new demogame. That is not the same as saying our laws should be vague. I agree our CoL should not have to cover every concievable situation, but those they do cover should not be vague. I see the judiciary's job as one of dealing with conflicts in our laws. We have to interpret our way out of legal conflicts, decide if conflicts exist. Yes, we will have to interpret vaguenesses from time to time but only when the citizenry do not make themselves heard on those issues.

Should our officials act as if there is no law, and as long as nobody complains they can do anything they want?

Of course they should not act as if there is no law. But they also should not act as though they cannot understand the law for themselves. Way back in the first Civ III DG I was PIed (the old name for a CC) and I was found guilty though I was only given a warning. The warning included the admonition that anyone in a position of responsibility in the DG should be aware of the rules! Our officeholders should do the best they can to understand the rules and operate within them. If they do, they have nothing to fear from CCs and will probably enjoy a long career in office. robboo was doing just that when he came to us for advice on the cease fire issue. His request was appropriate and it was appropriate for us to give advice. I think we've over-stepped our bounds by issuing a JR to plug the Cease Fire Law gap. That is something our citizens should address via a CoL amendment if they so choose. If they think an amendment is not worthwhile then I'd argue a JR is just as unnecessary.

 

[robboo]

Information for the judiciary:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=178263

We hereby close the office of Culture according to our CoL given powers. This is a temporary situation till the end of this term or until an amendment can close the office permanently. There is no interest in the office by any of our citizens.

 

[dutchfire]

Dear members of the Judiciary,
I've written an amendment, and according to my legal advisor I should let you review the mock poll I made. The mock poll is here . There is a post with al the changes color coded here. I hereby ask the Judiciary to review this amendment.

Citizen Dutchfire