Civlord
King
Thanks, RegentMan! Anyway, that was pathetic...
Term II Judiciary - The Dikastic Court
- Thread starter ravensfire
- Start date
Strider said:
I definitely agree with you on this, that overturning an action should be very rare. However, take the case of appointments. Suppose one of the completely unknown people who just register and never show up again, gets appointed to an office. A President who wants more power might do that, to ensure that he/she gets to make policy until the phantom citizen doesn't show up and gets declared absent again. In that case, if this JR ruled that a majority of all citizens is required you might have a hard time non-confirming the appointment.
Still, this conversation is pretty much moot anyway. Confirmation polls need to be open for 2 days which reduces the "few buddies" effect, and can only be used to protest online vs offline, and appointments which for the most part are rubber stamp situations anyway. Right now we just need a CJ opinion on JR7 as we have a tie to break.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Civlord said:
Civlord,
As has already been noted, the Judiciary is here to handle situations involving the laws of Fanatikos. When the violation involves the rules of CivFanatics, we are powerless except to notify the moderators. The matter was handled by those that are empowered to handle it.
All citizens of Fanatikos enjoy certain rights and liberties, among those is the right to free speech. Those rights end when the rules of CFC begin.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Ruling on DG7JR6
Question: What happens on a Confirmation Poll if the action has already occurred and is irreversible
Citizen Comments: Thanks to Gerikes, Daveshack, Bootstoots and Furiey for their comments.
Ruling: The Confirmation Poll is null and void.
Explanation: Confirmation polls happen in limited situations - they are explicitly allowed "where permitted by law." Currently, that's for appointments to fill a vacancy and for off-line game sessions. Confirmation polls must be posted within 24 hours of the action, and remain open for 2 days. The implication behind all confirmation polls is that the action is approved - the burden is to prove that the action should be rescinded.
It is possible, although highly unlikely, that a situation could arise where a confirmation poll does not complete prior to an irreversible action as a result of the action allowing the confirmation poll. The presumption of approval and the continuation of governance must take priority here to a poll that is not complete, and the results not known or considered final
Ruling on DG7JR7
Question: What does the phrase "majority of citizens" in Section H.5 of the Code of Laws mean?
Citizen Comments: Thanks to Gerikes, Daveshack and Bootstoots for their comments.
Ruling: The phrase "majority of citizens" refers to those citizens who voted in the poll.
Explanation: The intent is very clear - only those citizens that vote in the poll are considered.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
Question: What happens on a Confirmation Poll if the action has already occurred and is irreversible
Citizen Comments: Thanks to Gerikes, Daveshack, Bootstoots and Furiey for their comments.
Ruling: The Confirmation Poll is null and void.
Explanation: Confirmation polls happen in limited situations - they are explicitly allowed "where permitted by law." Currently, that's for appointments to fill a vacancy and for off-line game sessions. Confirmation polls must be posted within 24 hours of the action, and remain open for 2 days. The implication behind all confirmation polls is that the action is approved - the burden is to prove that the action should be rescinded.
It is possible, although highly unlikely, that a situation could arise where a confirmation poll does not complete prior to an irreversible action as a result of the action allowing the confirmation poll. The presumption of approval and the continuation of governance must take priority here to a poll that is not complete, and the results not known or considered final
Ruling on DG7JR7
Question: What does the phrase "majority of citizens" in Section H.5 of the Code of Laws mean?
Citizen Comments: Thanks to Gerikes, Daveshack and Bootstoots for their comments.
Ruling: The phrase "majority of citizens" refers to those citizens who voted in the poll.
Explanation: The intent is very clear - only those citizens that vote in the poll are considered.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Judiciary Rulings
DG7JR6 - What happens on a Confirmation Poll if the action has already occurred and is irreversible?
By a 3-0 decision, a Confirmation Poll is null and void if the action permitting the poll has already occurred and is irreversible.
DG7JR7 - What does the phrase "majority of citizens" in Section H.5 of the Code of Laws mean?
By a 2-1 decision, the phrase "majority of citizens" in CoL H.5 refers to the citizens that voted in that poll.
The Chief Justice and Public Defender voted for, with the Judge Advocate voting against.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
DG7JR6 - What happens on a Confirmation Poll if the action has already occurred and is irreversible?
By a 3-0 decision, a Confirmation Poll is null and void if the action permitting the poll has already occurred and is irreversible.
DG7JR7 - What does the phrase "majority of citizens" in Section H.5 of the Code of Laws mean?
By a 2-1 decision, the phrase "majority of citizens" in CoL H.5 refers to the citizens that voted in that poll.
The Chief Justice and Public Defender voted for, with the Judge Advocate voting against.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
I have a question - not a judicial review, but more a point of order. What would happen if, for example, I had ruled in JR7 that "citizen" refers to all citizens that registered, causing a 1-1-1 tie where all three justices have different opinions?
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Bootstoots said:
I would have worked with original requestor to clarify the question some, to make it less open. For example, changing the question to "Does the "all citizens" refer to only those citizens that voted in the poll?" would probably resolve the deadlock and answer the immediate question.
Getting that question right is my job - it needs to be clear what's trying to be answered. This one was a bit too open. Look at some from DG3 or 4 for some rulings where all three justices went on differnet tangents.
-- Ravensfire
Donovan Zoi
The Return
Honorable Judiciary,
I would like to request a Judicial Review on the wording of Article C of our Constitution.
Does this article as written require that we acquire no more than one city from each of our 7 rivals, or can it be construed to mean that we can take as many as 7 cities total from any one rival? I would like to get this resolved so that it does not become an issue at an inopportune moment.
Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter.
Respectfully,
Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatikos
I would like to request a Judicial Review on the wording of Article C of our Constitution.
Does this article as written require that we acquire no more than one city from each of our 7 rivals, or can it be construed to mean that we can take as many as 7 cities total from any one rival? I would like to get this resolved so that it does not become an issue at an inopportune moment.
Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter.
Respectfully,
Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatikos
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Request for Judicial Review
Donovan Zoi has come before the court with a question on Article C of the Constitution, asking how it should be interpreted.
I find this request for Judicial Review has merit. Further, due to the core nature of this question, I will be creating a discussion thread in the Citizen's sub forum. Please post ALL discussions in that thread. Justices must post their rulings in the Judicial thread, but are encouraged to cross-post to the discussion thread.
Docketed as DG7JR8 How is Article C of the Constitution to be interpreted - is it 1 city per civ, or a total of 7 captured cities, regardless of the civ we capture them from.
Discussion thread
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
Donovan Zoi has come before the court with a question on Article C of the Constitution, asking how it should be interpreted.
I find this request for Judicial Review has merit. Further, due to the core nature of this question, I will be creating a discussion thread in the Citizen's sub forum. Please post ALL discussions in that thread. Justices must post their rulings in the Judicial thread, but are encouraged to cross-post to the discussion thread.
Docketed as DG7JR8 How is Article C of the Constitution to be interpreted - is it 1 city per civ, or a total of 7 captured cities, regardless of the civ we capture them from.
Discussion thread
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
Civlord
King
Mr. Chief Justice,
I would like to warn you that you are not a "Public Defender" anymore.
Sincerely,
Governor Civlord
I would like to warn you that you are not a "Public Defender" anymore.
Sincerely,
Governor Civlord
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Civlord said:
Ah, but I am here to defend the Public as Chief Justice!
Hmmmm, what to change it to ...
-- Ravensfire
Civlord
King
ravensfire said:
Anyway, do we have here two public defenders and no chief justice? There is something wrong, then...
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
one has the title of "Public Defender", the other defends the publicCivlord said:
After much deliberation, and a general petering-out of the relevant discussion over the course of several hours, I feel it is time to make my ruling. Here it is. For those without the time to wade through my arguments to find out the rulings, a summary of my stances is posted below.
1) How should Article C of the Constitution be interpreted - 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?
Article C states, In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. According to the letter of the law, we may take only one city from each civilization. There is no reason to believe that the intent of this law is any different than its text, which is very clear on this particular issue. Therefore, my decision is that only one city may be taken per civilization, and that taking more than one city that originated with any single civ is illegal.
2) Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?
Ill quote Article C in full this time around. It states, No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately. My ruling in this case is that recapturing a city we built does not count as taking a city from another civ. My reasoning is threefold. First, the second sentence of Article C begins with in addition, implying that the five cities mentioned in the first sentence do not count in that one city per foreign civ limit. Second, Article C mentions that only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken. A city built by us is not a city from a foreign civilization, but is instead one of our five cities, as it originated with us, despite the fact that it may have temporarily been under foreign control. And finally, Ill make a practical argument that not allowing us to retake our own city would cripple preexisting game progress and is clearly not be the intent of this Constitutional article. Even a strict 5CC would permit the recapture of a city originally founded by the player, and to my knowledge there was no discussion of this when the Constitution was written, thus showing no intent to keep us from recapturing our own cities.
3) May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?
My ruling here is that we may not abandon a city from a rival civ to take another one. Quoting the second sentence of Article C yet again, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. Capturing a second city from the same civ would violate this article. The fact that we wouldnt be holding both cities in the same time frame is irrelevant: it is still the capture of a second city.
4) If we capture a city, then the civ recaptures that city back, may we recapture that city, any other city the civ has, or no city from that civ?
We absolutely can recapture that same city. Article C prevents us from taking two or more cities from the same civilization, not taking the same city twice. However, after capturing a city, we may not capture and hold any other city from that same civilization. If we did that, we would have captured without razing immediately two cities from the same rival, which would violate Article C. Again, the time frame in which the two cities are captured would be irrelevant.
5) If we capture a city from Civ A that was founded by Civ B, and we keep that city, which civ did we take that city from, A (who we conquered it from) or B (who founded it)?
This one is a fairly tough question. Ill begin my response in a rather typical (by this point) manner, by quoting the second sentence of Article C. According to it, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. When I looked at this article, its word order caught my eye. It states that only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken, not that only one city may be taken from each foreign civilization. Theres more to this than may meet the eye at first. Through this word order, it implies that the citys identity, for the purposes of the one city per civ limit, is with its founder (the civ it is from), not with its most recent occupier. If the law was intended to limit us to taking one city directly from each foreign civilization, instead of taking one city that originated with each foreign civilization, it would have been worded in the manner mentioned above (namely, only one city may be taken from each foreign civilization). Therefore, I rule that we would have taken the city from B (the founder), not A (the most recent occupier). This ruling has several implications. We may not, under this decision, have our city-control limit reduced by one for every civilization that falls before we have a chance to capture a city. If Persia falls before we capture one of its cities, we can still take one from another rival at a later date. Additionally, we will have to be careful during war not to take two cities that originated with the same civilization, despite the fact that they may have come from different civs at the moment of capture.
So, in summary:
1. We may have only 1 city per civ, not 7 cities regardless of origin.
2. No, we may recapture our former cities without counting toward the limit.
3. No, we may not abandon a city and then take another city from the same civ.
4. Yes, we may capture the same foreign city more than once, but we may not capture any other city from the same civ.
5. The city comes from civ B (original founder), not civ A (the civ that last occupied the city).
This post will be copied into the discussion thread.
1) How should Article C of the Constitution be interpreted - 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?
Article C states, In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. According to the letter of the law, we may take only one city from each civilization. There is no reason to believe that the intent of this law is any different than its text, which is very clear on this particular issue. Therefore, my decision is that only one city may be taken per civilization, and that taking more than one city that originated with any single civ is illegal.
2) Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?
Ill quote Article C in full this time around. It states, No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately. My ruling in this case is that recapturing a city we built does not count as taking a city from another civ. My reasoning is threefold. First, the second sentence of Article C begins with in addition, implying that the five cities mentioned in the first sentence do not count in that one city per foreign civ limit. Second, Article C mentions that only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken. A city built by us is not a city from a foreign civilization, but is instead one of our five cities, as it originated with us, despite the fact that it may have temporarily been under foreign control. And finally, Ill make a practical argument that not allowing us to retake our own city would cripple preexisting game progress and is clearly not be the intent of this Constitutional article. Even a strict 5CC would permit the recapture of a city originally founded by the player, and to my knowledge there was no discussion of this when the Constitution was written, thus showing no intent to keep us from recapturing our own cities.
3) May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?
My ruling here is that we may not abandon a city from a rival civ to take another one. Quoting the second sentence of Article C yet again, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. Capturing a second city from the same civ would violate this article. The fact that we wouldnt be holding both cities in the same time frame is irrelevant: it is still the capture of a second city.
4) If we capture a city, then the civ recaptures that city back, may we recapture that city, any other city the civ has, or no city from that civ?
We absolutely can recapture that same city. Article C prevents us from taking two or more cities from the same civilization, not taking the same city twice. However, after capturing a city, we may not capture and hold any other city from that same civilization. If we did that, we would have captured without razing immediately two cities from the same rival, which would violate Article C. Again, the time frame in which the two cities are captured would be irrelevant.
5) If we capture a city from Civ A that was founded by Civ B, and we keep that city, which civ did we take that city from, A (who we conquered it from) or B (who founded it)?
This one is a fairly tough question. Ill begin my response in a rather typical (by this point) manner, by quoting the second sentence of Article C. According to it, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. When I looked at this article, its word order caught my eye. It states that only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken, not that only one city may be taken from each foreign civilization. Theres more to this than may meet the eye at first. Through this word order, it implies that the citys identity, for the purposes of the one city per civ limit, is with its founder (the civ it is from), not with its most recent occupier. If the law was intended to limit us to taking one city directly from each foreign civilization, instead of taking one city that originated with each foreign civilization, it would have been worded in the manner mentioned above (namely, only one city may be taken from each foreign civilization). Therefore, I rule that we would have taken the city from B (the founder), not A (the most recent occupier). This ruling has several implications. We may not, under this decision, have our city-control limit reduced by one for every civilization that falls before we have a chance to capture a city. If Persia falls before we capture one of its cities, we can still take one from another rival at a later date. Additionally, we will have to be careful during war not to take two cities that originated with the same civilization, despite the fact that they may have come from different civs at the moment of capture.
So, in summary:
1. We may have only 1 city per civ, not 7 cities regardless of origin.
2. No, we may recapture our former cities without counting toward the limit.
3. No, we may not abandon a city and then take another city from the same civ.
4. Yes, we may capture the same foreign city more than once, but we may not capture any other city from the same civ.
5. The city comes from civ B (original founder), not civ A (the civ that last occupied the city).
This post will be copied into the discussion thread.
RegentMan
Deity
Not so much a judicial review; just more of a point of clarification. However, if it can become a JR, then consider it one.
Here is Article F of our constitution, displaying only the parts relevant to my question:
Here is Section F.2 of our code of laws:
My question is: can the governors vote in both declaration of war polls, as they are part of the Assembly and Senate? The code of laws mentions a House; who composes the House?
Here is Article F of our constitution, displaying only the parts relevant to my question:
Here is Section F.2 of our code of laws:
My question is: can the governors vote in both declaration of war polls, as they are part of the Assembly and Senate? The code of laws mentions a House; who composes the House?
I would certainly think that they'd be able to vote in both polls. Both Article A and F have all citizens included in the Assembly, and there is nothing making voting in both polls illegal for governors. As for the House, I think somebody got the governmental structures of the United States and Fanatikos mixed up; that should read Assembly.
Civlord
King
Bootstoots said:
perhaps this should be corrected to avoid confusion.
Furiey
No Longer Just Lurking
I don't personally like that the Governors are able to declare war against the vote of the people, but our laws say they can. They should be able to vote in both polls, they are still citizens and should still have their say as citizens, they then get another chance as Governors. But the House/Assembly thing does need correcting.
A funny thing about the poll of the governors is that at least 60% of the governors voting have to vote yes in order for the vote to be >50%, but as few as 1 could declare war if the other 5 abstain. (if I'm reading it right, could be wrong here) In fact, the only scenario in which a majority vote would not also be an overriding vote is when exactly one abstains, and the vote is 3-2-1.
Here are the "winning" vote totals, Y-N-A format
4-2-0, 5-1-0, 6-0-0 min 66.66... %
3-2-1, 4-1-1, 5-0-1 min 60%
3-1-2, 4-0-2 min 75%
3-0-3, 2-1-3 min 66.66... %
2-0-4 min 100%
1-0-5 min 100%
Here are the "winning" vote totals, Y-N-A format
4-2-0, 5-1-0, 6-0-0 min 66.66... %
3-2-1, 4-1-1, 5-0-1 min 60%
3-1-2, 4-0-2 min 75%
3-0-3, 2-1-3 min 66.66... %
2-0-4 min 100%
1-0-5 min 100%
Similar threads
