Amendment II: Apolytonian Court

[Verto]

Keep him around. That way if you nuke a city and the citizens get upset, blame it on him and a coup de'tat.

Or say that you didn't know anything about a meeting to discuss nuking every city that doesn't salute the Banana, b/c you had a lot of iced tea and had to use the bathroom rather frequently...

Democrats...bah.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Trip

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.

Unfortunately, this is true, it is impossible to get around parties. Someone may say they have left DIA or UFC, but isn't it really in name only? Wouldn't they still feel a certain amount of loyalty? Wouldn't the fact that they previously were in the DIA or UFC influence members of that party to vote for them? There are only a handful of us left not in either of those parties, and I'm not sure if there are four more besides myself out there to fill this bench.

How then is there a way to alleviate party politics on the bench? I can only think of one, that they are appointed for life (i.e. until they resign on their own accord or the end of the game), then, though they have a debt to who put them there, there are no repurcussions to them should they sway from their party line.

It would be good to make them quit their party, and they at least should be banned from partaking an active voice in any campaign or election thread, and also they should not be allowed to present amendements to the constitution. Though they may not be independent, they should at least act it.

As for this....

Originally posted by Spiffor

Future polls should be about :
1. numbers of judges
2. elected or appointed ? (group poll, to know who would appoint)
3. term limit ? (group poll to know if t's in a row, in absolute number, none at all)
4 Should they have the power to impeach ?
5 Should they have the power to reformulate the constitution without altering its meaning ?

I think it would be best, assuming the court is approved for amendement, that we poll one piece at a time, as Spiffor lists it. The court should then hash out its own rules, this is necessary to maintain its independence.

To provide thoughts on each of the proposals to be voted on....

1. 5 seems reasonable, one chief justice. Seven judges as the most at the most.
2. elected or appointed? appointed with approval by the ministers seems the most efficient. Elected could draw this into more party politics. Having appointed judges would mean that the president would have to select someone who was pallatable enough to 2/3's of his ministers, which allows greater for a balanced bench and increases the chances for independents.
3. for life, as mentioned it is the only way to reduce the influence of party politics on the bench
4. No, they should not. Lets remember that an impeachment is an indictment, not a conviction. The court may decide whether the impeached minister is convicted and removed from office, however. Impeachment should be left to a poll, with 2/3's voting in favor.
5. They should not be able to reformulate the constitution, that is left to the populace. They are however, charged with the task of interpreting the constitution, but only when the interpretation is requested.

To expand on 4 & 5, the court should not go out and give opinions at their own choosing, they need to have reason, otherwise the court could become too powerdul and may also become too bogged down in minor details, and matters better left to the ministers.

A dispute on constitution interpretation needs to be brought to them, either as a suit stating the constitution was violated, or via interpretive request (i.e., if a minister wants to make sure he is within his rights in cases where the constitution is ambiguous). These things should be PM'd to the cheif justice and he should allow a forum for the justices to debate and decide the issue, a simple majority is needed. For disputes, each side must have one representative present their arguments before the justices retire to deliberate.

As for removal of a minister (or judge) from office, that needs to pass an impeachment poll, before the court considers it, and then they must hear arguments from a Minister prosecuting the case, perhaps this could be a task for the VP in such matters, and the impeached, who may be represented by counsel.

It is also important that the justices be allowed to refuse to provide an opinion, i.e., when they feel there is no violation or where they feel there is no ambiguity in the constitution.

This could be a very beneficial amendment, it will be very interesting to see how it plays out.

[notyoueither]

How about nominated by 2 thirds of the ministers and confirmed by 51% vote of the people?

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by notyoueither
How about nominated by 2 thirds of the ministers and confirmed by 51% vote of the people?

This would be a good compromise between appointed and elected, but won't it be time consuming?

Oh and to my last post, the judges would be able to ask questions to those representing the opposing sides in impeachment or any dispute.

[Jon Shafer]

*Trip wonders what happened to all the people voting no. *

[Verto]

I guess their opinions were swayed because they want to be in the majority...

[LordImpact]

well in this case the majority has done the right thing

--Impact

[Verto]

The decisions of the majority HAVE to be the right thing.

Or else...


Global warming...my SUVs are backed by nuclear weapons!!!

[LordImpact]

OT: Global warming is a myth...

--Impact

[Verto]

I agree.

[jdjdjd]

If global warming's a myth, why in the name of the holy banana won't those damned Canadian geese fly further south in the winter like they used to? Damn messy and mean birds. (Please no offense meant to any Canadian's except the geese themselves.)

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Verto
I guess their opinions were swayed because they want to be in the majority...

Yes, but...
1/4 of the people have voted no, I don't don't recall seeing more than 2 people saying why.