Amendment: Judicial Branch

[Captain]

I'm still not convinced either way about either appointing judges or electing them though.

I suppose it may not matter much. I am just concerned that appointed or elected judges would swing their judgments in favour of certain people or parties that have the power to replace them as judges.

[jdd2007]

politicians do whatever their party wants, but it should not be so in the judicial system. I strongly reccomend against party politics guiding judges decisions. the whole idea of this is to have an unbiased decision. I might even go as far as to say that no one with a party affiliation should be a judge...

[LordImpact]

Originally posted by Captain
I am just concerned that appointed or elected judges would swing their judgments in favour of certain people or parties that have the power to replace them as judges.

Well since the judges are protecting the interests of the common citizens, a judge should only be removed by a majority vote among the people. Also, as I said before, there should be a clause in the amendment stating that any elected official who tries to sway a judge's decision would be removed from office. What it all comes down to is we need a select group of citizens whom we can trust to be politically neutral. Prehaps a committe consisting of UFC and DIA members, and Independants should be formed to seek out upstanding citizens who fit the criteria stated above.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Yeah, 5 is likely a better number, with three needed present on a hearing. That would allow more flexibility. Replacing 2 each term would be nice as well, keeping some rotation going on there. And DEFINATELY no other positions held at the same time.

On keeping parties out of the Judicial arena: Even if we required them to renounce their party, their views are the same. What needs to be done is OPEN BALLOTS on Judicial decisions. This way it will become clear if a Judge is voting exclusively for a party/letting party politics influence his decision. This is done in RL, might as well adopt it here. Make the Judges responsible for their acts/votes. Judges must have an open ballot (to the public, not each other) and explain WHY they voted that way.

[Trevman]

I do not see the need for a justice system. Firstly, our is a small document that mostly outlines ministers' responsibilities and containsa a long-winded sections on polling rather than define laws. What would they judge besides polls? And if a poll is unconstitutional, so what? Are you going to impeach a minister for leaving a poll up to long or not adhering to one of the myriad regulations.

Basically, their power would be to punish a minister which the people could do already with a 2/3 majority. But instead of 2/3 of the people, it would be decided by just three, very democratic.

Also, our government is too chaotic for a surpeme court of sorts. In almost every (maybe every) there has been some ministers missing causing others to have to take over their duties. Some ministers have just dissappered. Our government is only partially formal and does not adhere strctly to rules. Therefore, how would a court make them do so without punishing many of the ministers and throwing our government in anarchy?

It seems to me that this court would take power away from the people and unnecessary bureaucracy and make the game difficult to continue.

[jdd2007]

Trevman, i diasagree with everything u just said

[ThePlagueRat]

After reading the above arguements, I want to post a summary of how I think a constitutional court should be formed.....

Numbers:
Ok, we need more than 3 members of this court.
Someone have to be able to judge constitutional matters each day. I could apply for this job, but could never keep track every day alone. I say 5 members...

Parties:
A const.court member could, without problem, be a member of whatever party he/she wants. Organization freedom is a democratic right. Biased judgement would of course be subject to prosecution by the other four... and possible punishment by the society.

Officials:
An official in an other position would not be fit to this position.
They have enough to do, anyway...

Tasks:
The most common is to help the poll creators to follow guidelines, and judge whether they are followed constitutionally, or not.
A PM should be sent to a court member by someone who suspect invalidity in a poll. (to help them keep track)
And a court member should quote the actual const. clause, in their ruling, at the actual votation.

Another important task is to clarify const. clauses and seek to change weaknesses by toghether formulate a modification proposal in a poll. (but this have to be signed by the president in that votation and polled upon by 66% to go through)

On impeachment matters, they should all play an active role in the prosecution... And of course not being the defendant's solicitors. (well, other citizens could spontanously take that role)
-----

Ok... Easy job? If there were 5 to do it?

[Jon Shafer]

I'm going to start up a poll asking whether or not we should have an "Apolytonian Court" or not... if it passes (2/3) then we can iron out the kinks later.

[Sheik]

ThePlaugeRat sums up my opinion exactly. This is precisely the way it should function. Good ideas!

And five judges would be perfect.

[OPD]

just a small thing

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
(Original order of which Judge is replaced first is randomized, then oldest one first)

how about instead of randomizing the one with the least votes from the election goes first.

[kring]

I am against it for one reason: it will be political, no matter how you do it. I recommend voting for them if it does get done.

Trip, we need to iron out some of the major kinks before you do a poll.

As was mentioned, the people can decide. Besides which, there was a recent poll that was unconstitutional, what happened with it I don't know.

This will just add another level of bureaucracy, decreasing member involvement more, except for the involvement of the judges.

And what happens when the judges decide a poll is constitutional when it is blatantly not so?

Also, the will of the people must not be overriden by judges; in other words taking the power from the people. And I am not talking about unconstitutional polls. The polls need to be reviewed (for official ones anyone) before being posted.

How about a polling review committee, that would review the official polls before allowing them to be posted?

Like I said, politics will play into this big time, whether they are elected or appointed. At least by electing them, the people have the chance to vote.

In some places, the judges are elected, and it works just as well as voting for other people. In other places, the judges are appointed, but every election, the people are asked: Do you want to keep Judge X in office? or something to that effect.

Term limits are a must. The ability of the people to oust judges is also a must.

What happens if enough people believe the judges made a wrong call on a poll? Esp. if they did, for whatever reason.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by kring

How about a polling review committee, that would review the official polls before allowing them to be posted?

I'm a strong supporter of a consitutional court, and I'm against your idea. Many polls are direct decisions to be made next turnchat (such as : what tech should we research ? Where should we place Banana HQ ?)
Needing the favourable advice of a commission would need a tremendous time (different timezones make it difficult to have a long discussion on each poll), and that's time during which people can't vote. It would be less democratic, which will be bad.

[minos]

I don't actually agree with the idea of a constitutional court because our constitution is specific enough to make it unnecesarry, but if it does pass I must propose what I think is the best plan for its implementation.

The court would consist of nine members. For decisions, a three member panel would be formed, rotating so that panels were not always the same group. (more on this later) If the people were to find a decision unjust, the entire court could be asked to review the case.

The court would have jurisdiction over all constitutional questions. They would interpret the constitution and give a decision. They would also be allowed to investigate officials in the case of potential wrongdoing.
(providing of course, that the people wanted them to) They would have the power to then NOMINATE officials for impeachment at which time the people would vote.

The judges would be appointed by the pres, and then would require a majority of the PEOPLE to be confirmed. After all, leaving too much to the ministers would make this the Civ3 Representative Democracy game and none of us want that do we?

Lastly, the judges would serve terms of three months, one term limit. However, the end of the term would be staggered so that three were new every month. On every three man panel would be a judge in the third month of their term, one in the second month, and one the first.

Anyway, that is my unfortunately lengthy plan for the court that I personally opposed to.

[minos]

OK, so it's not that lengthy

[notyoueither]

Suggestion

Nominated by the Pres/VP/1 other minister. By majority.

Confirmed by the people. They (judges) who do not gain 50.1% votes are not confirmed.

Having 3 ministers decide lessens the politics due to one party or the other (probably).