Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Judicial System

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    About the all justices part. That's just to decide is the case is triable and it can be done over e-mail/pm/whatever. What i suspect would happen is the accusor would send a PM to the Lead Justice (if there is one) and he would circulate it to the rest of them any way he can. The Justices would read it over and if 3 say the case is worth going to trail over then three justices will be chosen to try the case based on availability. I know it might be tough, but if it's absolutely necessary, we can add more justices...

    Comment


    • #47
      It certainly wasn't my intent to push ANYONE out of the loop on this, especially Trip. I wouldn't say everyone supports it either. There are still a few things that need hammering out. Also, the proposal was definately not meant to be adopted as is. Like I said, It's just a proposal. Not everyone is in agreement, and only a few have responded to it directly so we have no idea what the attitude of the general population is towards it. All I had hoped is people would take a look at it, discuss the sections briefly and we would somehow be closer to a compromise on Trip's ammendment. This court is his baby more than anyone elses.

      All in all, I probably should have posted this in the Ideas Compilation Thread rather than here. It would have atleast received more attention there.

      Comment


      • #48
        I beleive that the court should have the power of indictment. They should be able to announce what minister should be impeached, and why, and put it to popular vote. That also makes for a clean compromise.

        In order to do this, however, the court needs to be able to have information that would enable them to say "That minister is totally incompetent, and should be impeached!". That is why I think that along with the judicial branch amendment, there should be an increase in the Historian's responsiblilities. The minister's should be responsible to copy private inter-department mail (or maybe just the weekly report each minister submits as to what he did and what resulted of their advice) of what to the archives, in case it needs to be pulled out as evidence.

        Also, any minister who feels that a fellow minister is not pulling his weight should be required to tell the Court, and submit proper records to the Historian or Court. The records being on file will also allow the public, come elections, to see which candidates deserve to be reelected.

        In short, having a system where the court can decide that action needs to be taken, but that the action is then submitted to a majority vote, is the only way for the impeachment system to have any meaning.
        "The Enrichment Center is required to inform you that you will be baked, and then there will be cake"
        Former President, C3SPDGI

        Comment


        • #49
          Obviously, this thing has been hashed around, and many good ideas have made there way in.

          I suggest that once the polls close, that the amendment be compiled based on same with certain other matters that need hashing out, and we can,

          A. hash them
          B. Trip review the hashing and propose an amendment for vote
          C. Trip appoint someone/panel to review the hashing and propose an amendment for vote
          D. Leave the hashing to the new court (with exception of impeachment which probably needs a separate amendment to include the court in the original consititution, i.e. an court roles and/or ability to impeach a judge).

          There is nothing wrong with the court making many of its own rules and set precedent on them. Maybe the its better to leave things flexible, this idea is a baby and needs room to grow.

          I will post this same message in the related threads.
          Note: the Law Offices of jdjdjd are temporarily closed.
          "Next time I say something like 'lets go to Bolivia', lets go to Bolivia"

          Comment


          • #50
            I think Lord Impacts 11 clauses looks great. It summarizes up a lot of the discussed matters. What about polling for each one of them? (yes/no) Or maybe poll with one of Trip's alternatives as second option? (when the meaning differs)

            I think it is imperative to put §1 to §11 to a votation somehow, after this discussion.

            If Trip is to initiate this poll, then he should use Lord Impacts clauses for the amendment proposal in 1.post.
            My words are backed with hard coconuts.

            Comment


            • #51
              I also like Lord Impact's clauses very much, and they even include, in a way, my ridiculous rambling, except there is no mention of exactly why the judges would have reason to impeach and how they would obtain that reason (my expanded historian role). His post should certainly be included in any polling.
              "The Enrichment Center is required to inform you that you will be baked, and then there will be cake"
              Former President, C3SPDGI

              Comment

              Working...
              X