Apolytonian Court: Everything Else

[LordImpact]

Since the trial would stem from a violation of the constitution, the accusor would not really need representation. However, if the accusor, or the accused would like someone to represent them, they should be able to choose someone on their own. I dont think we need to have presuctor or defender positions. As for appealing. All rulings by the court should be final. Since the judges are simply enforcng the constitution, a change in the constitution would be the only thing that would force the reopening of a case, but by the time that happens, the case would probably be long over, and irrelivant. The judicialbranch only need answer to the constitution and the people. It should be seperate from the executive branch and the ministers. I say we keep the court as simple as possible. If we need to expand certain parts of the judicial sytem, we can do that when there is need to.

--Impact

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Captain
At no time is there "game stoppage". Judges in real life have no power to stop time or go back and replay history. What is done is done. Remember that the justice system cannot truly correct wrongs, they can only punish wrongs. They can provide compensation as well, but not restore things to their original condition.

---
Lastly, I want to strongly push for judges to have to write out the reasons for their rulings, including any dissenting judges, within 24 hours. If this is not done, the ruling will be deemed invalid.

If the ruling is unanimous, there needs to be only one (1) written report.

If the ruling is split, there must be a Majority report and a Dissenting report. Total two (2) reports.

This clause will prevent capricious and flippant decision making, should we be unfortunate enough to have elected/appointed some bad judges.

One thing we still haven't discussed:
What will be the mechanism for appeal?

Agree in general with most of what you say. However...

re injunctive relief. I believe this is important to grant. President Atilla is about to order a war by attacking a neutral unit. That act may be unconstitutional. An injunction against that act must be possible to preserve the intent and the spirit of the constitution and the democracy. A single judge must be able to issue it, but he or she better have darn good reasons for doing so.

At the same time, the president must be able to proceed with the game, while of course avoiding the proscribed act. The power of the president and the ministers to proceed with the game while staying within the boundaries of the injunction must be absolute and can never be a matter for the court to decide upon. Executive privilege if you wish.

The mechanism for hearings re impeachment should not be denied. It should be different from 'normal' complaints that could be denied a hearing. Although, if complaints are made in threads, there is no reason to deny any hearing. I believe the 'evidence' should be made in a thread for a minimum of 24 hours, after which time the court may decide if there is enough for it to impose censure in such cases. or to proceed to deliberations or reject the claim in the case of more mundane issues.

Censure would be a prelude to a poll, immediately held. The censured judge/minister would not act pending the outcome of the initial hearing, and then the impeachment poll if that was decided on.

Except... anyone can start an impeachment poll. Maybe only judicial censure results in suspension pending the outcome of the poll. And as far as that goes, a judge's/minister's foes need merely PM the court in order to prevent that judge or minister from acting in a pressing matter. Hence, any suspension should only be once judicial censure has been made.

I agree about reasons for rulings, but disagree in the case of dissenting opinions. All the dissenting judge need do is decline to write an opinion and the ruling would be invalidated. Dissenting opinions should be optional.

Appeal? There should be only one. 67% vote of the people in a properly constituted poll. The poll may be improperly started or constructed, in which case the court may post a repoll that would over ride the first. If they do not prior to the end of 4 or 5 days (the minimum for an official poll) then the original poll stands. If they do, the original poll is invalidated immediately.

[notyoueither]

Hmmm. One thought. If presidents nominate judges, should they be involved in renominating? Or should the discretion on resubmitting him or herself to the people for confirmation be solely at the discretion of the judge?

If the president needs to renominate, that is a powerful deterent against a judge ever ruling to the presidents disadvantage, even in dissent of a majority.

Nope, the politicians should definitely never be involved in renomination. That's my opinion.

[LordImpact]

I agree on the renomination issue.

[Aggie]

re injunctive relief. I believe this is important to grant. President Atilla is about to order a war by attacking a neutral unit. That act may be unconstitutional. An injunction against that act must be possible to preserve the intent and the spirit of the constitution and the democracy. A single judge must be able to issue it, but he or she better have darn good reasons for doing so.

My thought exactly and that was why i mentioned it in another thread. This is a better place to mention it. Good point nye on the renomination, i didn't think of that. Maybe they could be automatically renominated and submitted for approval, though personally I don't think anybody would want the job for longer than one term. Then again it is a fairly relaxed and uneventful job, at least hopefully it will be.
Aggie

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by Sheik
I think judges should have the power to throw out impeachment cases. This court idea is great. A judicial is just what this game needs.

That' right...
But how do we implement such things? Here's some thoughts...

In many European countries:
If the representatives (senate/parliament) do not want the particular govt. they can throw them all out of office by votation of 51% yes. This is a democratic form called "parliamentarism". (Philosophied upon by Voltaire)

I suggest we do not use this kind of rule here yet, since it would complicate things utterly...



In the USA:
However, taken in account he violates the law, he could also be impeached. (according to US law) This action is normally initiated and organised by a court of judges. And voted upon by the representatives. (which can be all of those participating here)
Anyway, the popularity of this person can have an unforeseen effect?

I suggest we put this rule to a const. votation very soon...

[MrWhereItsAt]

As ever, Captain speaks a helluva lot of common sense, and well written as well, so I suggest all look at his posts here. I support basically all that he says.

I do not think we need elections for judges however, merely a Presidential/Ministerial appointment and confirmation is fine. What, we don't trust the Prez and Ministers to make such a judgement? If not I seriously suggest you (try to) impeach these treacherous Cabinet members. We elected them, didn't we? If we don't trust them to have our best interests at heart, and to be capable, we should blame ourselves.

Oh, and Timeline - such matters we don't NEED to dream of in the Civ2 game. No-one is going against the peoples' will there, so there isn't any need for such weighty matters. Someone has a problem, they tell me, and I act on it, period. No need for such long-winded "just-in-cases".

EDIT: Looking at the poll results to date I need to say this.

The Judicial system should NOT be able to impeach nor rule beyond the bounds of the Constitution. Why should it? These are powers beyond the will of the people, and are thus contrary to the whole idea of a Democratic game. The judiciary needs to rule on whether something is within the bounds of the Constitution, and whether an impeachment case needs to be heard by the people. The Judges should have as little power as possible, 'cos we ALL decide. NO Autocracies, please. That might make the office of Judge an even more political position than it seems to be becoming. Let's keep this a Democratic game, shall we?

[Sheik]

Why does this poll have the option:
There shouldn't be a court.

Didn't the court already pass and therefore those votes don't matter?

Or is that option like an abstain vote?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Sheik
Why does this poll have the option:
There shouldn't be a court.

Didn't the court already pass and therefore those votes don't matter?

Or is that option like an abstain vote?

It's just a fun option. This is an unofficial info-gathering poll anyways, so it doesn't matter.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Vlad Antlerkov
Impeachment vs. no impeachment: Should be allowed, but only for ministers (Presidential impeachment would be handled differently) and only in the event of major violations of the [PC] Constitution/CoL [/PC] or major disruption of the game (NEVER on political grounds).

I think that we are confused on the idea of impeachment,

impeachment = indictment

I have pointed this out previously.

The court should not indict a minister or president, that should be done by the people, in a properly voted on poll which should pass by 2/3's vote.

The court then should hear arguments and decide of the offending minister or president is to be removed from office. The court should make the decision on removal because this court should be set up as an independent entity, see my prior posts on this topic, and thus not swayed by politics and the popular will.

I think the post needs to be corrected or at least explained in the opening thread to show that the court will decide about removal from office, but that the indictment (the impeachment) is to be based on a poll of the citizenry.

[jdjdjd]

Oh, and the president and the minister or even judge, impeachment process should be the same.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
I think that we are confused on the idea of impeachment,

impeachment = indictment

I have pointed this out previously.

I think we're all only using the term for the reason of simplicity, since it's a word that most people will recognize with "removing an official from office", even if that's not the literal definition of the word.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Trip

I think we're all only using the term for the reason of simplicity, since it's a word that most people will recognize with "removing an official from office", even if that's not the literal definition of the word.

OK, so long as I'm on the same page as the rest of you, and that those outside the countries that use impeachment are not misinformed.

For this thread, impeachment is used to mean, removing an official from office.

Thank Mr. President, and good lukc in your campaign.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
For this thread, impeachment is used to mean, removing an official from office.

That is correct.

Thank Mr. President, and good lukc in your campaign.

No problem, and thanks! Vote for me!

[Purple]

Originally posted by jdjdjd

For this thread, impeachment is used to mean, removing an official from office.

Trip, would you add this statement prominently to the first post in this thread?

Thanks jd3 for finally pointing out the correct meaning of impeachment.

I recommend rewording the ammendment to reflect proper use, or else you have to provide the definition in the ammendment, which is a little messy. Otherwise, the courts will have to interpret it.

This is absolutely crucial in any legal document, but especially in a constitution.

Off my soapbox now.