Amendment II - Court Idea Compilation Mk. II

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Aren't we making this awfully complex? I don't see the need for all the rules. Something along the lines of what Trip originally posted is all that is necessary. (I disagree with several of the things he posted)

Time limits can be left up to the court I think.

I agree, and in general we shouldn't bogg the court down with too many rules and regulations. We should build it on a fram work that will allow them to improvise because we cannot forsee every possible problem. If we choose to regulate everything, what will happen if something comes up that the regulations don't cover? That is why they should improvision should be the overall theme of our court.

[Kramerman]

I pretty much like Togas write-up, though I don't think the appointment process needs to be so complicated. I'll agree to it however if this is what goes into the final bill that will be voted on to ratify into an ammendment.


Kman

EDIT: Well done, Togas

[jdjdjd]

The poll on number of justices is already answered at 5, I think it was an official poll, so seven is out.

I htink still that justices should have unlimited terms, this was never polled on, the original poll dealt with number of terms not length of term...I'd like to see the results of that. In any event, no reason while whole court can't turn over at once, so long as the threads are there with case decisions.

And as Spiffor, I think, mentioned...this court is not going to have a huge over flowing docket, so any transition should work out rather smoothly.

I think we need to concentate on getting polls posted for the various topics disputed and unpolled...and then get an amendment in place, that is flexible and able to grow, change, adapt as needed.

This matter is disputed and disputed, and in many threads. We all are not going to be happy in all cases on this court, so we have to get past that and come to some compromise and get the court set up. Sometimes is seems like were a roomfull of lawyers getting paid by the hour.....just going round and round and round, and billing billlin billing.

Anyway...back to my adventures.

[Moral Hazard]

jdjdjd:
The number of judges poll was unofficial as stated by Trip when he ran it.

Unofficial (I'm going to compile all the results from the polls and combine them into an official amendment).

4 Days.

This isn't official, so just read the question, and it'll be obvious, I don't feel like explaining.

Concerning other issues I like both of things Togas has written haven't had a chance to review jdjdjd's propasal will soon.

[Togas]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
The poll on number of justices is already answered at 5, I think it was an official poll, so seven is out.

I checked it out. The poll was unofficial. Only 38 people voted in it anyhow. I doubt the populace is going to rebel and vote against this amendment if it has two additional justices.

IMO, Five is fine. Seven would also be fine. The Court won't be so busy that it needs more members, but it will make it easier to get a three member quarum for any emergency issue that arises.

But Jd has a point, we need to wrap up this thread, make any final polls, and get an official version of this before the people.

Does anyone feel that there is still a signifigant issue that needs to be argued? What is left that needs to be polled?

--Togas

[Moral Hazard]

Matters to be polled before ammendment:
Confirmation proceedings (ministers vs. the people)
A change in impeachment (but I seem to be the only person against it)
3 month term vs. life.
type of majority needed for decisions.

That's all I can think of at present.

I agree that the ammendment should be put up for vote soon.

[jdjdjd]

My apologies to Togas et als, 5 is unofficial.....

Captain did a summary earlier on this thread, it could be a place to start. Togas did a proposal, as did I (mine was in progress when togas posted....so similar on many issues). There is also the original by Trip. I listed 10 issues I think we need to deal with now, and I reiterate let the court deal with other set up matters.

Moral, glad to see you up and about.

[Kuciwalker]

First, I don't think we need the 5 (five) type things. Please stop that.

Second, I think we should have every official except the President choose the Justices. Take a little power away from the Presidency, and have seven justices to boot.

[Jon Shafer]

I've looked over the amendment re-written by Togas, and I've changed a few things again. I've tried to compensate for what everyone wants... hopefully this will work.

And sorry for not responding to everyone abou this matter, I've been exceptionally busy as of late.

This amendment hereby creates an official Apolytonian Court (hereafter refered to as "The Court")

The Court is constituted to rule upon: contested disputes involving legal interpretation, validity of polls, violations of the Constitution, impeachment, or any other legal dispute of national importance.

The Court is composed of Five Justices. Each Justice is to be appointed by the President, and each must be approved by a majority of the populace in an Approval Vote.

The Court is to decide among itself a 'Senior Justice', who will be respondible for ensuring that a report is published for each decision that communicates the rationale behind the decision made, and presiding over any hearings before The Court.

A quorum of at least 3 Justices must be involved in any ruling that is made. Should The Court be tied about how to rule on an issue, the Senior Justice is to decide the result of the issue.

All rulings are immediately official and final. The same issue can only be brought back to The Court with 75% of the Justices agreeing to rehear the matter. All decisions must take place in real-time, as The Court cannot halt the game to make a decision without a 2/3 vote amongst the people.

The Court cannot act on any issue until a non-judicial citizen of the nation brings forth an Issue to The Court.

Issues to The Court should be posted publically and must involve a dispute that The Court is empowered to rule upon.

The court may impeach an official with a 75% vote within the court, and a 50% plus 1 vote amongst the people, but only after a Call for Impeachment has been made by a citizen of the nation.

A Justice may not serve in any other governmental post. Each Justice serves a term of two months in length. At the end of that term the Justice may be reappointed by the President. The President may be bypassed in this process if 75% of the populuce re-approve the Justice in a vote. There is no limit to the number of terms a Justice may serve. A Justice may be removed from his office by a 50% plus 1 vote amongst the officials and a 2/3 vote amongst the people.

Please respond only to things you would like changed, and how you would like them changed. This issue is getting terribly bloated, and we need to start getting to the point.

[Kramerman]

I think this is great! However, I would still like 7 justices. Also, why is it that only a quorum of 3 justices is needed to resolve an issue and not the entire court instead? If we are going to have 5 or 7 Justices, why wouldn't we use them? Other than these things I am happy with this bill. And even if nobody wants to include my ideas I'll probably still vote to ratify it.

Kman

[Sirotnikov]

I'm tired:



1 - appointed by minister of justice
2 - a limited, long, non consecutive term is best.
3 - they should be able to order a halt to a game for a period they need to investigate.
4 -
5 - 51%
6 - option B yet not retroactive
7 - only for the length of the appeal
8 - no
9 - nope



minister of justice -
responsible for aiding the government in matters regarding democracy and law, and if need be, representing it in court whether in defense or prosecution
responsible for giving his advice and interpertation of the constitution to the government, in consideration of the interests of the people
responsible to discuss freely issues with judges, get their opinion and advise to the government accordingly, so that the court can be consulted without making an official trial
responsible to give advice to vice president about polls wording and legality
responsible to appoint judges together with the president


sorry for being short
but
1. it's 5 am
2. it's really hot here
3. i'm tired

[Timeline]

Well, I started trying to put together something to try to incorperate all the suggestions here, and make them into a consitution format like Togos. What happened is I started formulating my own ideas.

Eventually I gave up, because I too far behind on what is being discussed here to catch up lol. Here is what I came up with, feel free to use any of it.


Apolytonian Court:

The Apolytonian Court reservoir contains 7 judges whose general purpose is to define pre-existing law, preside over all official polls, and hold hearings on cases brought against the government. Rulings by this court are considered judicial law, and must be upheld.

Judicial Appointment

Judges are appointed by the President of Apolytonia, but must first be approved by over 50% of the people before they may take their position.

An appointed Judge is granted the right to serve in his position for at least two months. After this time the President decides if the judge should be replaced, and if so, which member will replace him.

During confirmation polls of Judicial appointment, it must be stated which Judge the candidate is intended to replace. If 51% confirmation is failed to be obtained, the current Judge continues his/her service.

Judicial Removal

Should the need arise to remove a Judge before his 2 month period of service is over, a Judge may be removed by the following means.

Unanimous agreement by all Ministers, the President, and Vice President. And a 51% or more agreement among the people.

Rulings that the removed Judge may have participated in, stay in effect and still hold judicial wieght unless appealed.

Judicial Powers

An Apolytonian court has the power to hold hearings on any poll (open or closed) and rule it invalid. In such a case, any action as a result of the poll is to be reversed.

The Court has the power to impose an injunction on any currently open poll, in order to hold hearings on its validity if they so wish.

- at this point I gave up. If you think it is good thus far then please tell me and I will resume work on it. If you think this is unneeded and redundant, then please tell me that too , and I will know I did the right thing by giving up.

Oh yeah: I was also planning on going into an "appeals" court, made up of 3 of the 7 judges. They would rule on appeals and such obviously

That's the reason I put 7 judges in there.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Kramerman
I think this is great! However, I would still like 7 justices. Also, why is it that only a quorum of 3 justices is needed to resolve an issue and not the entire court instead? If we are going to have 5 or 7 Justices, why wouldn't we use them? Other than these things I am happy with this bill. And even if nobody wants to include my ideas I'll probably still vote to ratify it.

There was already a vote that was so 1-sided towards 5 justices it was almost unreal. 70 or 80% for it I believe. While yes, it's unofficial, those numbers still quite telling.

The reason a quorum of 3 is necassary for every decision is because real life will intervene. A few weeks ago Linney had to take over for me during the turnchats since I was on vacation. It's reasonable that in 2+ month terms, at least for one case there will be at least one justice missing.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Trip

There was already a vote that was so 1-sided towards 5 justices it was almost unreal. 70 or 80% for it I believe. While yes, it's unofficial, those numbers still quite telling.

The reason a quorum of 3 is necassary for every decision is because real life will intervene. A few weeks ago Linney had to take over for me during the turnchats since I was on vacation. It's reasonable that in 2+ month terms, at least for one case there will be at least one justice missing.

Well then, all is good enough for me, though timeline had a few things that might be added that I liked, such as Judicial removal.

Kman

[Kramerman]

btw, it was noble of you to step down. Much of the heated debate has since stopped since your announcement and I can feel sanity slowley leaching back into the veins of Apolytonia. Anyway, that was good of you, though the election poll hasn't closed yet not at least the last time I looked, and at any rate it was still real close and you do still have a shot

Kman