Amendment II: Apolytonian Court - Idea Compilation

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Captain
Unless someone else does it first, I can do this for you within two days. Unfortunately, real life is calling at the moment. (This is why I've never run for office, because I can't be consistently around enough).

So unless someone else wants to, I'll resummarize everything in a few days.

Thanks.

Once I get a summary of the most popular ideas, I'll hash out another version to work with.

[Epistax]

I am wondering about the complete job description of these justice system. If it were to imitate that of the Supreme Court (US), would that mean that it would hear cases not related to politics at all? The only thing I can think of at the moment is ruling about a public nuisance in turn chats / forum, but for the most part that can be acted upon intelligently without much thought needed. (Although maybe the court would later rule on that decision).

This is a different kind of issue I see from others that have been posted.

[Moral Hazard]

Some more judicial responsibilities.

Administering elections (starting); including special elections. As well as deciding what to do in case of tie election.

Keeping a list of laws, and rules.

[Moral Hazard]

The reason for the above is not that I'm afraid that the president will be corrupt but that this will limit his already intensive workload.

I am correct in assuming that the court presides over diputed polls? I don't think there are very many of those any more anyway.

Also when we first install the justices, I think we need to do a tiered system, that way President's down the road can't pack a court with their own justices.
So for the FIRST court session, we'd have to have truncated terms.
1 justice would only serve 1 month
2 justices would serve 2 months
2 justices would serve 3 months

I really like this suggestion except I think it should be
2 justices serving for 1 month.
2 justices serving for 2 months.
1 justice serving for 3 months.

I think they should be appointed and then confirmed by the people, but I don't really have any strong opinions on the above statements.

[ThePlagueRat]

How 'bout the ministers collectively appointing these judges?

And then senate votes for confirmation, a yes/no-polling.
(the senate is by simplicity assumed to be the participating members here)

Could that be reasonable?

[Jon Shafer]

But then there would still have to be some sort of 'election' amongst the officials in order to decide upon judges. Again, the 'popularity contest' issue comes up.

[ThePlagueRat]

So it's a 'popularity contest' vs. an 'integrity contest' ?

Ok, I'm not really sure which way would prove to be most democratic...

[Captain]

Major Issues

GENERAL SUMMARY of the JUDICIAL THREADS

(Note: All polls refer to % of active citizens).

Major Issues with General Consensus:


1. Judges should not hold any other office while being a judge.


2. Three judges should sit on each case. The quorum is 3. Which judges sit on which case will be determined based on availability, randomness, or a cycle.


3. There should be more judges, at least 5, so that at least 3 of them will always be available for duty.


4. The main duties of Judges are to determine validity of polls, repolls, and other contentious laws - according to the existing Constitution and laws. Politics are not to be considered.


5a. Judges have the additional role of "filtering" accusations/charges against people (in "Hearings") and determining which ones warrant proceeding (with "Trial") and which should be dismissed.

5b. This includes deciding whether there are grounds for Impeachment trials to proceed. Judges do not have the power to indict on their own.


6. Judges can be removed by the same impeachment process as ministers. If more judges are on trial than are available for sitting in judgement, all judges will then face a Confirmation poll (51% or 2/3). Any unconfirmed Judge will have to be replaced. Hearings/Trials will then proceed.


7. Impeachment cases have "Hearings" which may proceed to "Trial". Polling cases do not have "Hearings" or "Trial". Judges simply make a decision and the poll is either valid or not.


8. Judges have no power to sentence, no power to create new laws (other than by the same means that regular citizens do), and no power to enforce their recommendations. They simply decide the validity of polls & law, and whether the law has been broken.


9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. 2/3 is required. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain.


10. Judges must publish a report giving the legal reasons for their decision to validate the ruling. Only the majority opinion must be given for validation. Dissenting opinion should be given but is not required for validation. In the event of a Unanimous ruling, the report must still be published for validation. This is in case of appeal and to keep Justice transparent. Reports should include any recommendations.


11. Judges cannot seek out cases on their own. (But a concerned judge can bring a case before the Judiciary as long as they do not sit on it or any other current case. This prevents Judges from "trading favours". The simpler loophole is for a Judge to simply PM a citizen who will take up their cause for them.)



Major Issues without Consensus


1. Should Judges be appointed, or elected, or something else?

a. Judges should not be elected as this leads to a popularity contest, rather than who will best serve the nation. Judges should be appointed.

b. Judges should not be appointed since this would lead to too much political interference and leading to Judges who are beholden to certain ministers/officials. Judges should be elected.

c. A possibility is appointment by the President (or ministers) with a required 51% confirmation of nominees by the citizens (not an election). This is a compromise.


2. Should Judges have term limits? If so, how long? Should the terms be staggered to provide rotation?

a. Unlimited terms could lead to corruption. People should be able to remove bad judges without resorting to impeachment trial (especially if multiple judges are protecting each other by dismissing charges).

b. Limited terms means Judges will have to play to the crowds or appease the ministers when it comes time for re-election/re-appointment. Unlimited terms prevent politicizing justice or vendettas. Besides, removal already exists, from retirement and impeachment.


3. Should Judges have the power of injuction to halt the game ?

a. Yes, to prevent unconstitutional acts. Example given was that of a President engaging in an unlawful war (that which the public has voted against).

b. No, the Justice system can punish criminal acts after they are committed, but not prevent them in advance since no crime has taken place.

(Also, the chance of the President unlawfully engaging in some act is zero, since at present the Constitution does not require officials to obey polls.)


4. Should Judges have the power of injunction to halt a contested poll until a decision is made? but not the game?


5. Judicial decisions are open to appeal, but what is the mechanism for appeal?

a. A review by the other judges (not involved in the case) who then decide whether there are any legal grounds for granting a new trial.

b. A poll to the public with a 51% or 2/3 vote success forces a new trial.


6. Where the law is unclear or non-existant, should Judges be required to dismiss the case?

a. Yes. No relevant law exists, therefore, the Judges have no right to continue a trial. Any new law created should not be retroactive because citizens should not be bound in fear of unknown new laws condemning them for present actions.

b. No. Judges may place the case on Hold while requesting the legislature (that is, all the citizens) to clarify the law or create a new law, by discussion & poll. The case can then proceed.


7. Should governments be allowed a Notwithstanding Clause which lets them temporarily ignore Judicial rulings or delay their implementation?


8. Should there be any clauses similar to Presidental Pardon?


9. Should Judges be allowed to be members of political parties?


How's that? Have I left anything significant out?

[civman2000]

1.b
2. Yes, 2 terms of 2 months, they should be staggered.
3. a
4. i don't understand the question
5. b
6. a
7. No
8. no
9. yes

[Robber Baron]

Captain: Kudos and much thanks for sorting this stuff out. This has been an incredibly tangled set of threads -- but an important issue, and we appreciate the work of those of you (you too, Trip, and others) who are staying on top of this.

[Maltes]

sorry, I'm just testing the forum... Markos, sincere apologies!

[jdjdjd]

Just a couple, I think were missed by Cap'n....

1. Should judged be restricted from involvement via threads in political campaigns and elections. They still can vote.

2.Cases to be heard by judges are restricted to constitutional issues and impeachment...or not.

3. Cases judges hear must be brought to them or can they go out decide to hear a case on their own.

[Captain]

Go to this thread here to continue the discussion so we have have it all in the same thread

continued discussion

thanks!