Judicial System

[Sheik]

Did the ammendment to have a judicial system pass. If it did when will this be implemented?

[ThePlagueRat]

I think it's gonna pass... Ok, we need to discuss the details before we can implement it. That could mean some more polling, since this is meant to be constitutionalised.

Here's the content I proposed:
(we need some more, and some juridical edit to it)

------------------
Courtmembers:
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)
-------------------

Do you think this look like a proper description for the court?

[Jon Shafer]

I just bumped it. The discussion thread is off on page 2 I think. I'm going to try to compile the ideas into another thread if the amendment passes.

[notyoueither]

I suggest we discuss the ideas one at a time.

Number of members.

Method of selection.

etc...

[ThePlagueRat]

One at a time? Then we have to discuss it all over again...
Why not continue the previous thread, some issues there needs to be settled in some way...

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I suggest we discuss the ideas one at a time.

Number of members.

Method of selection.

etc...

You know, you're probably right. I'm going to make polls for each option in regards to a court position. Later on, we can compile what the most popular options are, and people can add on with other ideas as well.

[Sheik]

Good idea.

[notyoueither]

No TPR, not rediscuss everything from scratch. What Trip said. Within the new discussion, start with one point. Discuss it. Arrive at consensus. Post a poll. Proceed to next point. More like what Trip said.

[Spiffor]

Trip
Edit : it's horrible, Trip, NYE and myself agree way too much these times...
I get it ! Here's what I should have wrote : Trip !

[ThePlagueRat]

I think Trip's issue-by-issue votiations makes some sense.
Polling on the already discussed matters seems fair, and democratic...

Also, interested voters can link to the (quite large) discussions here and make up their minds.
Hmmm... Now I think we understand eachother?

[Luk]

Member of Constitutional Court should not be a memeber of any party, it is a normal procedure in every single democratic country. I think it is very important, because it is a foundation of every normal judical system.

[Jon Shafer]

If you want me to finish the court idea and amendment, you guys had better reelect me.

Keep in mind, the polls aren't absolute... for example, what I can do with a close vote between "the courts can impeach" and "the courts can't impeach" is that 4 out of 5 judges must agree on impeachment, along with 50% of the public, instead of simply 2/3 of the public (like it is now). The polls are only unofficial and used for info-gathering.

[ThePlagueRat]

And after the info gathering, what will you do?
Hmmm... Hand it over to the secretaries, saying "work faster!" ,and head for the golf course?

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Here's the content I proposed:
(we need some more, and some juridical edit to it)

------------------
Courtmembers:
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...

5 is good. So 3 or 4 could always be available to decide any issue that may be deemed urgent. 7 or more is too much.

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
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.

If you want to maintain the court's independence or at least its appearance, you could make any member leave their party. That is merely an act, obviously someone may still beleive in line with one of the parties and vote that way. But, to take them out of the party, restrict the threads they can post in, and given them unlimited terms would help bolster the independence they would have from any party or the general populace. A judge needs to do what he deems right and constritutional regardless of the feelings of the people, ministers, the president and the banana.

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

Absolutely, if a minister were appointed they would have to resign their current post.

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
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)
-------------------

1. I agree a poll creator can turn to the court for advise on constitutionality of a post, or even a minister may ask for guidance when they feel an action by them is questionable.
A PM to the court is appropriate and then court would consider.

2. I disagree however that the court should seek anything, i.e. a more clarified amendment,etc. Only when the issue arises into a dispute, should the matter be presented to the court for their decision. To allow the court to seek out and change the constitution is to potentially give them too much power. A dispute must be presented to them for them to make an interpretation of the constitution or as in 1. above.

3. On impeachment they should be the judge, and make the decision on whether the offending official is removed from office. Impeachment (or the indictment) should be handed down via a poll of the populace. The minsters, perhaps the VP or Pres should present the case for the prosecution, the defendant should have his right to counsel, or should rep himself. When arguments are presented the court may ask questions and then the court will deliberate. The question is should removal from office be unanimous or do 4 of 5 need to vote in favor or just a simple majority. That will need to be decided. The reason the court should decide this is that they should be the most independnt voice in the democracy, not swayed by public opinion or party politics, and therefore someone is not removed from office unless there truly is cause. Or at least that is what is hoped.

Power to the people, if that is what we want, demands a truly independent court. They need unlimited terms, but to counter balance that, they need to be restricted from posting on amendments, elections, campaigns, party threads, etc. and perhaps even should not be allowed into turn chats.



Sorry I went on so long, again, on this topic.

[LordImpact]

Could you please explain the need for so many restrictions on what the judges post and why they shouldnt be allowed to enter the turn chat? The judges should not be influenced by the people or ministers, i agree, but if they can't post opinions then they might as well not be able to read threads either...

[EDIT]What I mean to say is: I see no need for such heavy restrictions being placed on the judges. I agree thet they should be neutral in political affiliation, but why cant they ask questions of political candidates? Are they also not allowed to vote in elections? Their main job is to make sure the ministers are following the laws of the constitution. If they are being biased, then it would be pretty easy to catch and they can be removed.
I think if anyone would be a voice of reason in this game, it would be a judge. So why can't they put their two cents in on an amendment? I think these restrictions you suggest are infringing on the judges rights as a citizen. If a minister can do all these things why cant a judge?

--Impact