Term 7 - Judiciary

[donsig]

Quite right, until something comes up in the culture minister's area of responsibility. Then we'll be in a bind because another official cannot organize the necessary decision without fear of legal action.

How many times do I have to say this? Decisions can be made and things can be organized in this game WITHOUT any one (or more) OFFICIALS. The filling of an office does not confer some sort of super power on the office holder nor does a vacancy in an office cause everyhting to grind to a halt.

I am also tired of hearing about fears of legal actions in this game. You'd think we were summarily executing citizens left and right. To my knowledge we've only wanted to expel one citizen in almost ten demogames but He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named ran away and didn't even give us our one chance.

The amendment has two purposes, abolishing the unwanted office, and assigning the duties to other offices.

Wait, let me get this straight. The culture office was abolished because no one was interested and there was nothing to do. So now we have to pass an amendment to divvy up those duties? Am I or are you ?

 

[robboo]

donsig...can you say that theres is no way for the Cultural duties to come up....

We cant write a law after a situation occurs you need it nowbefore it occurs. THIS will remove an office and consolidate the governement by one office not add more offices.

The mechanism to shrink the government is in place. We chose to use it. Now if there is no "legal" problems with it, can we stop discussing the reasons why we did the amendment and allow the citizens to vote IF the amendment meets all of the requirements.

For you to decide if the amendment is needed, I dont believe, is within your powers..the people decide that by voting. You can only advise if the process was followed and amendment is legal.

 

[ravensfire]

Wait, let me get this straight. The culture office was abolished because no one was interested and there was nothing to do. So now we have to pass an amendment to divvy up those duties? Am I or are you ?

In the context of you fulfilling your duty, it doesn't matter, donsig. You cannot judge good vs bad, only legal vs illegal.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

donsig...can you say that theres is no way for the Cultural duties to come up....

No, but I can say that (with or without the proposed amendment in place)
the business of our country, the demogame and life can all go on unimpeded. Can you say otherwise?

For you to decide if the amendment is needed, I dont believe, is within your powers.

I would say it is not for the Censor to decide whether or not citizen initiatives that are private polls are valid or invalid. Yet, that has been going on for how many terms now?

 

[GeorgeOP]

I would say it is not for the Censor to decide whether or not citizen initiatives that are private polls are valid or invalid.

IIIB. The Powers and Duties of the Censor:
1. The Censor shall post his Procedures of Censorship at the beginning of his term, defining how Official Polls will take place during his tenure.
...
4. The Censor is also responsible for validating any other official polls.

It seems like as long as he is following his own Procedures, he is supposed to decide what is or isn't validated.

 

[DaveShack]

I plan to rule on case 7-2 within the next two days. If there are any legal arguments to be made that its contents are in conflict with existing law, they should be made soon.

 

[donsig]

I plan to rule on case 7-2 within the next two days. If there are any legal arguments to be made that its contents are in conflict with existing law, they should be made soon.

I will not be issuing a ruling on this case.

 

[robboo]

I will not be issuing a ruling on this case.

Could you tell us why...especially since you are running for an office this term.

 

[donsig]

Could you tell us why...especially since you are running for an office this term.

Sure. I'm sick and tired of having the issue I'm most concerned about (private citizen initiative polls) being cast aside. This is my way of showing others what that feels like. Two or three Censors now have simply refused my requests to not automatically invalidate private initiatives giving questionable legal reasons for doing so. I also love pointing out flaws in our system. I'm showing how a) we've given our Censor tremendous power over whether a poll is binding or not, b) our current laws have many assumptions from past demogames built into them, c) we don't know how to deal with dissent and d) you guys can't impeach me.

 

[DaveShack]

Judicial Reviews
. . .
Concurring decisions or rulings by at least two justices will resolve a judicial review.
. . .

We don't actually need 3 rulings on the case.

 

[robboo]

Sure. I'm sick and tired of having the issue I'm most concerned about (private citizen initiative polls) being cast aside. This is my way of showing others what that feels like. <snip> I'm showing how a) we've given our Censor tremendous power over whether a poll is binding or not, b) our current laws have many assumptions from past demogames built into them, c) we don't know how to deal with dissent and d) you guys can't impeach me.

Very mature attitude..its the old "hold my breathe till I get my way" stance.

a) write an amendment much like we did to change the CoL
b) I wouldnt know first time here..I will take your word for it.
c) dissent from our side is simply frustration on figurin gout why 1/3 of our judges wont rule and only wants to make comments on the idea not the law. I normally show dissention by not voting for the person.
d) we will see about that---more to come next term.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Donsig, haven't you always told people to make amendments if they didn't like the way the law is written? So why don't you start an amendment to deal with the problems you see?


Ruling on Case 7-2:
I don't find anything against the CoL or Constitution in this amendment. It may go on to be voted by the public.

 

[donsig]

Donsig, haven't you always told people to make amendments if they didn't like the way the law is written? So why don't you start an amendment to deal with the problems you see?

A) I don't think an amendment is needed. Our laws alredy allow for private polls.

B) Because the same thing could be accomplished by the much easier method of having the Censor establish reasonable procedures.

C) Because the same thing could be accomplished by a citizen's initiative. (Which I tried doing long ago only to have it's results questioned because it was not a private poll.)

Just as the judiciary should not be the first option resorted to, amending the CoL should be done with care.

 

[DaveShack]

A thorough review of the proposed amendment has not revealed any conflicts between the proposed changes and existing law. The amendment may proceed to a ratification vote.

The court has ruled 2-0 with one abstaining that the amendment reviewed in case 7-2 may proceed to ratification.

 

[DaveShack]

The court has ruled 2-0 with one abstaining that a cease fire is not the same as a peace treaty, and thus is not restricted to being decided only by a floor vote of the assembly. The court also ruled that organizaing a cease fire falls under the responsibilities of the Secretary of State.

 

[dutchfire]

A thorough review of the proposed amendment has not revealed any conflicts between the proposed changes and existing law. The amendment may proceed to a ratification vote.

The court has ruled 2-0 with one abstaining that the amendment reviewed in case 7-2 may proceed to ratification.

so what happens now with the amendment? A poll?

 

[DaveShack]

so what happens now with the amendment? A poll?

A member of the juciciary posts an official ratification poll. I can't do it right now, in a few hours unless GeorgeOP gets to it first.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Ratification poll is now up.

 

[donsig]

It seems like as long as he is following his own Procedures, he is supposed to decide what is or isn't validated.

But the censor only has authority over official polls. Citizens initiatives are not official polls they are initiatives. Also, initiatives must always be allowed. These are ideas based on our constitution, not our CoL. The CoL and lower forms (like the censor's procedures) cannot over ride what is in the constitution.

The main stumbling block preventing us from resolving this issue is our inability to reconcile two view points:

1) Initiatives and official polls (which are listed seperately in the constitution) are different things. The definition of binding poll is quite seperate from these two terms.

2) Initiatives are the same as official polls which are the same as binding polls.

I adhere to the first, DaveShack to the second. I invite everyone to read the constitution and decide which view point is their own.

 

[GeorgeOP]

What I find in the Constitution and Code of Laws, trying to not slant my findings any way.

Article C - Decision Making
1. Power of the People
2. The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways [only some are listed here]
By Opinion Poll in the form of the results of a non-binding poll
By Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.
By Initiative in the form of a binding poll initiated by the citizenry, which has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type

So a Referendum isn't the same as an Initiative, but both are listed as a binding poll. Only the Opinion Poll is listed as a non-binding poll.

Article D - Elections
2. All Election and other polls in which specific individuals are chosen by name shall be private polls, and not public polls.

However, it does not say here that all other polls must be public. It is in the Code of Laws that we find this:

Section 3 Items Several or All Offices
A) Standards of Conduct
II. Polling Standards
IIC. All official polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days to be binding, however it is recommended that binding polls be open from 3 to 4 days if possible.
IID. Official polls should be marked Public unless directly concerning another Citizen.

The CoL is quite clear that a poll must be public by default, unless concerning another citizen. We could find conflict of this law with another law in the Constitution.

Article C - Decision Making
1. Power of the People
4. A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except
Initiative must always be allowed

We could say the Constitution does not allow the "Public Vote" part of the CoL to influence a Citizen's Initiative. So if Citizen Smith creates an initiative that lasts for five days and is private, one could argue that the Constitution mandates that it is allowed and becomes a binding poll. However, using the same logic, Citizen Joens could then make an initiative that lasts for one day and is public and also claim that the constitution forces us to follow that poll. Invalidating one part of the CoL on initiatives invalidates all of it, and that is a dangerous slope to aproach.