Tweet
Since the thread got sooooo very long, I'm posting (yet) another thread.
Here is my proposed amendment as it stands:
Here is an excellent summary courtesy of Captain, so you guys don't have to read 4 pages of stuff 
:
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?
Here is my proposed amendment as it stands:
This amendment hereby creates an official Apolytonian Court. The amendment will outline its creation, meathod of judicial appointment and powers.
The Court is entitled to rule upon and only upon cases brought in front of it. It can by no means pursue cases. The decisions it comes in agreement to are official and the same case can only be brought forth again with 75% of the justices agreeing to hear the appeal. Cases that involve Constitutional affairs as well as non-Constitutional affairs may be ruled upon by the court.
The Court is to have 5 members. These members are to be appointed by the President, and approved by 2/3 of the ministers. The court is to decide among itself a 'senior justice', who will produce a report upon each case, and preside over each trial that take place. A quorum of at least 3 justices must rule in every case for it to be official. In the case of a tie, the senior justice is to decide the result of the case. A report is to be written for both the majority and the dissenting sides of each case, explaining the reasoning that the justices came to their decision.
Justices may serve as many terms as they are chosen to. A justice may not be a member of any other position but his own in the court. Each term will be 2 months in length. A judge may be removed from his office by a 51% vote amongst the ministers and a 2/3 vote amongst the people. In turn, the court may impeach a minister with a 75% vote within the court, and a 51% amongst the people (as opposed to only a 2/3 vote amongst the people).
The Court is entitled to rule upon and only upon cases brought in front of it. It can by no means pursue cases. The decisions it comes in agreement to are official and the same case can only be brought forth again with 75% of the justices agreeing to hear the appeal. Cases that involve Constitutional affairs as well as non-Constitutional affairs may be ruled upon by the court.
The Court is to have 5 members. These members are to be appointed by the President, and approved by 2/3 of the ministers. The court is to decide among itself a 'senior justice', who will produce a report upon each case, and preside over each trial that take place. A quorum of at least 3 justices must rule in every case for it to be official. In the case of a tie, the senior justice is to decide the result of the case. A report is to be written for both the majority and the dissenting sides of each case, explaining the reasoning that the justices came to their decision.
Justices may serve as many terms as they are chosen to. A justice may not be a member of any other position but his own in the court. Each term will be 2 months in length. A judge may be removed from his office by a 51% vote amongst the ministers and a 2/3 vote amongst the people. In turn, the court may impeach a minister with a 75% vote within the court, and a 51% amongst the people (as opposed to only a 2/3 vote amongst the people).
: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?
I still say approval should be by the public at large.
Comment