Announcement

**Fatwreck** · July 5, 2002, 18:14

**Sheik** · July 5, 2002, 18:16

This is a great idea!

**LordImpact** · July 5, 2002, 18:23

just gotta follow the trend!

three cheers for justice!!!

**Inverse Icarus** · July 5, 2002, 18:26

what? no.

last thing i need is the DIA with more power...

i can see the uberkrux war crimes case...

**Duddha** · July 5, 2002, 18:27

i can see the uberkrux war crimes case...

lol

**ThePlagueRat** · July 5, 2002, 18:35

OK... If this goes through, then the descriptions of this court we made in the discussion also goes through? (I can't see much description in your poll here. )

If, yea... repoll on this proposal?

--------------------------------------
Members:
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)
------------------------------------

...or change something first?

**LordImpact** · July 5, 2002, 18:50

it all looks very well thought out to me. I approve. I've changed my mind, 5 judges does sound better. However, I think only 3 should sit in on a hearing at one time. There should be a head judge who always sits in on hearing and the other 4 justices rotate. This would relieve some of the stress on the regular justices. I say three justices because 5 on a single case just seems excessive to me. Everything else in your proposed amendment looks good though. I think you or Aggie would make an excellent Head Justice.

**Aggie** · July 5, 2002, 18:57

ThePlagueRat, I think if this passes we will then vote on the amendment's actual form later. Probably something similar to your points and my points put together with some changes, since there does seem to be a pretty good concensus for most of our ideas. For the record, here were my points, with some alterations that have been suggested.
1) 3 judges serving on each case(total of 4/5)
2) appointed by president but approved by the ministers on a 2/3 vote
3) can be removed by a 3/4 or 2/3 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.
8) As far as the political leanings of the judges I agree that they should be(as much as is possible) fairly nonpolitcal. Perhaps we can say that a judge shall not have held politcal office during the previous/following month of their term. Perhaps they should not have participated in political debates or campaigns either. Though of course they still keep their right to vote.

I suspect the details will be dealt with later as trip said
Your fellow citizen
Aggie

**ThePlagueRat** · July 5, 2002, 19:30

Yeah Aggie, I see there is more work to go through before we see the results. 3 days + 3days + ???days. Ok, effectiveness is not a democratic strenght, we experience here.

I think we need another poll on the content after some planning.

I agree with Aggie at most issues. However, on the issue of appointing the court members, I disagree. I think that should be an election based upon political independence.
Not another minister's job! They have their things to do.
So a UFC or DIA member (or even a commie) stating his party-membership in such a poll will be deemed unfit for the job, sounding biased to the task. (as far as I can see)
This would be presented to the public, who votes party indepentantly. (we hope)

**jdd2007** · July 5, 2002, 19:39

parties should have no part in the court at all. judges must be completely unbiased...

**LordImpact** · July 5, 2002, 19:43

I agree with jdd. One of my greviences with the American Supreme Court is the fact the a president can stock the bench with judges who support the ideals of his party. Franklin Roosevelt increased the number of Justices and filled the positions with liberal democrats just so he could get his new deal legislation passed. Justices should be unaffiliated with a party in order to ensure there is no bias.

**ThePlagueRat** · July 5, 2002, 19:48

There is a point! jdd might be right.
So one has to cancel membership, then?
(nearly everyone are members of some party, nowadays)

**Apocalypse** · July 5, 2002, 19:51

Courts are good as long as parties stay out of them for the most part.

**Jon Shafer** · July 5, 2002, 19:52

Originally posted by LordImpact
I agree with jdd. One of my greviences with the American Supreme Court is the fact the a president can stock the bench with judges who support the ideals of his party. Franklin Roosevelt increased the number of Justices and filled the positions with liberal democrats just so he could get his new deal legislation passed. Justices should be unaffiliated with a party in order to ensure there is no bias.

He tried to, but it didn't pass.

You see, that's why we need checks and balances. Any appointed judges would have to be approved by a 2/3 vote from the ministers (as my plan has it), so unless the vast majority of ministers are with your party (and consequently, a vast majority of the public who voted for them), then there will always be balance.

Whether or not someone is part of a party, they will always have political views... forcibly expelling them from their party won't change that. We will simply have to work around that, and make sure ministers vehemently strike down radicals on either side.

Yes	75.47%	40 votes
No	24.53%	13 votes

Announcement

Amendment II: Apolytonian Court

Amendment II: Apolytonian Court

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment