Announcement

**Jon Shafer** · July 4, 2002, 19:54

Trying to be the unbiased guy I am (

), I'll just lay out what's to be discussed first post, then give my ideas in another one.
I think we should have 5 judges. We don't have that many citizens, so any more would lead to a bloated court system that would be impossible to manage (can you imagine trying to get the input of 9 people on a constant basis?).
As I stated in the first post, I think that Presidential appointment and Ministerial approval is fine. Unless someone comes up with a better idea (elections for JUDGES would be incredibly foolish).
I think terms should be 2 months (so that the President isn't constantly appointing people), and there should be a limit of 2 terms. 4 months is quite a while.
Not quite sure about the last point... I don't see many places where the judges couldn't rule over something. Of course all of their decisions would be entirely official, so there may be some areas where this may be a problem.

**ThePlagueRat** · July 4, 2002, 20:23

That could be an useful idea...

We need someone to clarify and formulate the constitution somewhat, and also to gather reports of abuse and potential holes. Maintaining a democratic development, without having power to sentence anyone to anything. Not prosecuting citizens, but prosecuting suspicious events. Maybe I could take the job?

**Jon Shafer** · July 4, 2002, 20:26

First, we have to determine what the job entails, then we have to see if 2/3 of the people want it.

**LordImpact** · July 4, 2002, 20:31

The more checks and balances the better. It sounds like a good idea. After all, it would be the judges job to interprit the constitution and make sure noone abuses their power. 5 judges sounds reasonable to me, as does the two term limit, the term length, and the appointment by the president with ministerial approval. There aren't all that many laws now, but I suppse there will be once more amendments are made. I think the judges would have to review any and all laws the president and/or his cabinet make for constitutionality. Also, if anyone has a problem with any decision it should be put up to judicial review, again, to check for constitutionality. I think an amendment to the constitution clearly defining the powers of the court is in order, if it is decided to create a judicial branch. And I don't see any reasons why there shouldn't be one.

**Spiffor** · July 4, 2002, 20:34

Except to decide if a poll is legitimate or not, we don't need any judcial system. Let's face it, justice is meant to decide punishments to people who behave badly, unlike consitutional court.
Problem is : we have no way to punish people who behave badly, except reporting them to the mods, massively ignore them, or ban them from a responsibility post. To do this, we don't need any judge, it's the call of each of us.

However, I'm perfectly fine with having a constitutional court. No need to have so many people (5). I think 2 judges would be enough.

To nominate these constitutional judges, elections are the best way, or rather the "least bad". It will avoid wanabee judges to be guarddogs of the Prez (or any appointer), and these judges will represent the interests of the people. I know we'd ideally need judges who work for the sake of the law, and nothing else. However, the Law cannot appoint anyone, so we need unsatisfying elections.

**ThePlagueRat** · July 4, 2002, 20:42

Of course! Discussion goes on... tomorrow we might have more opinions.

Some general description is mentioned above already.
Use this as a job description, and perhaps some additions/changes, but don't make it too complicated.
It could be named Supreme Court?

But how many members? 5? 3? (should be an odd number)
Then you make a decision.

And after that you could post an official poll about it. And we'll see what this fine people think...

**ThePlagueRat** · July 4, 2002, 20:48

There is another point Spiffor.

No personal guard dogs!
I think we're onto something here.

**Spiffor** · July 4, 2002, 20:50

I don't like "supreme court" because it sounds too American, and we're Apolytonians. Also, for us non-Americans, we could imagine a "supreme court" punishes supreme crimes (rather than discussing constitution).
"Constitutional court" is a much clearer name IMHO.

You're right about having an odd number, I forgot this. I still think "the less the better". There will barely be anough work for one person, having 5 or 7 judges would be absurd.

**LordImpact** · July 4, 2002, 20:54

Originally posted by Spiffor
However, I'm perfectly fine with having a constitutional court. No need to have so many people (5). I think 2 judges would be enough.

An even number of judges would be a disaster. What if they were divided on the issue? A minimum of 3 judges is required. After all they're interpriting the constitution. Different people ahve different interpritations. I agree that it should only be a constitutional court. Their only job would be to make sure new laws and in game decisions are constitutional.

**ThePlagueRat** · July 4, 2002, 21:18

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't like "supreme court" because it sounds too American, and we're Apolytonians.

Also being a non-Amreican, I could perhaps talk to a "hoeyesterettsjustitiarius" in my home country asking for a proper name.

Just kidding... An English (UK)
word for it would be great. Don't remember it, though.
(They also wear funny looking wigs over there)

FYI: That was actually the longest word in norwegian, which is a title for judges in our supreme court.

**Jon Shafer** · July 4, 2002, 21:27

Originally posted by Spiffor
To nominate these constitutional judges, elections are the best way, or rather the "least bad". It will avoid wanabee judges to be guarddogs of the Prez (or any appointer), and these judges will represent the interests of the people. I know we'd ideally need judges who work for the sake of the law, and nothing else. However, the Law cannot appoint anyone, so we need unsatisfying elections.

How would one campaign for a position as a judge anyways? And how would you pick? It would be even more political and chaotic than minister elections are. All you would get is "Hey, I'm running in an election for a judicial position, and, uh, well, I'm an honest guy, so, yeah, vote for me!"

**Aggie** · July 4, 2002, 22:18

I think we should have a constitutional court. Here's my suggestion
1) 3 judges
2) appointed by president but approved by the ministers on a simple majority vote
3) can be removed by a 3/4 vote of the people
4) main job, judge the correctness of polls and see if actions are constitutional
5) 2 month terms and can't have consectitive terms
6) can only judge cases brought before them(ie no snooping looking for cases)
7) trial would be a special chat session with each side presenting one round of arguements, to keep it simple
perhaps other comments could be pmed to them before and after chat. Decision handed down next day.

Just some ideas
Aggie

**LordImpact** · July 4, 2002, 22:22

well said Aggie! I wholeheartedly agree.

**Robber Baron** · July 4, 2002, 23:08

The big question here might be, would the judges have the right to bring action against the president for playing counter to the will of the people?
That sounds like a very sticky issue, and a real mess. If the judges' jurisdiction is limited to determining the validity of polling, I'd say it sounds like a good idea.
Odd number of judges (no ties) ... Small number of judges (we want well-qualified people who really know the game and the constitution) ... equals 3.
Question: since this function might be real sensitive politically speaking, should we try to somehow disqualify the real politicians? (The DIA diehards, and the UFC ultras) Can't think of any effective way of making this kind of determination, but it does seem to me this function could be a way for one side to muck up the other. Maybe, all three judges can't be from the same party/coalition?
Or maybe I shouldn't worry about it.
One other issue: we would want to set up procedures for impeaching judges who flagrantly abuse their position.

Announcement

Amendment: Judicial Branch

Amendment: Judicial Branch

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment