Amendment II - Court Idea Compilation Mk. II

[MrWhereItsAt]

Well, since there's not all that much debate here (yet ), I will at least state my feelings on the contested ideas.

1. Method of selecting judges.

I still believe appointment by the peoples' Democratically chosen, trusted officials is the way to go. Election is too political and brings about the (vague) possibility of contested elections from the very start. I would however not oppose strongly the idea of appointment, followed by confirmation, if it appeared the will of the people was strongly in odds with my main view.

2. Term limits

I have less strong feelings about this, but I slant towards having them - two months at a time is fine by me. This at least gives others the chance to participate -the people can always vote no confidence in the new candidates and to restore the originals if we so wish. That is what the Demo game is all about, isn't it? First - the peoples' will be done, and seeond - give everyone every chance in the world to participate wherevere and however they want. Obviously some are less suited to Ministerial positions or Judiciary, but we at least must grant them the right to run for election.

3. Power to halt the game

This may be heading towards a little too much power, but such an issue will likely never arise. My feeling is in accord with the other posters' here - grant them the power.

4. Power to halt/restart a poll

You bet. This is a large part of what the Judiciary is, IMO.

5. Mechanism for Appeal

I think perhaps it's best for the people to have a say here - but how will we avoid silly cases being brought forth to waste peoples' time? Perhaps if we make it so that there is a minimum number of voters in such a poll for it to be considered valid? If someone else can think of another way around this let us know.

6. If the law is unclear/absent

It is the Judiciary's job to clarify laws! If this requires a suspension on the case until clarification is made, so be it. If the law doesn't exist, then there can be no case on principle, but then it is up to someone to ensure next time there IS a law.

7. Can the Government temporarily ignore rulings and/or sentences?

No. Why should they?

8. Presidential Pardon Clauses

N O.

9. Judges can be members of a political party

Sure. But if their politicking is seen to be excessive or to interfere with their job, they should be able to b e removed via the same process as they are chosen (by Ministerial acceptance of the removal and/or confirmation by the people.

60% required for impeachment (Aggie's idea) - this sounds fine.

[Sheik]

Trip this looks like a good comprimise. I might change a few things but I don't really have any huge problems with it.

Posted by Kloreep

I still say approval [ of judges] should be by the public at large.

Some problems could arise here. Like Trip said if the public voted on judges the people with the most visibility on the forums could be elected. With judges we want to make sure that we get people who we know will do a good job. Since the people elected the ministers we should view them as responsible poeple and we should let them choose the best people for the job. Judges don't really need to campaign so what would the people vote on? Having the judges appointed by the president and approved by the ministers is a good idea.

[Epistax]

When someone is elected by the populACE, it is because they are populAR. This might be fine with little positions such as president and ministers But for judges, whose job is basically to keep things on track, their duty is to officiate as independently as possible. In theory, the best judge is the person that knows nothing, and knows no one.

Now when someone is appointed by the president, and accepted by the ministers, there really is little in a popularity contest. It's ultimately up to one individual to select someone. If they are bias, they are rejected by congress (or whatever we are calling it). If they become bias, they are removed. If they are unbias, no matter how unpopular, should they be removed? IMHO, no, not as long as they are doing what is right, although the congress or other justices can have the person removed.

[Moral Hazard]

um when people are saying good compromise by Trip, you do realize that his proposed ammendment hasn't changed?

[Moral Hazard]

A confirmation by the people would be a yes/no vote, so it's not a popularity contest really. If they are merely appointed by one person and confirmed by the ministers, he will probably go with the person he knows most all else being equal.

[Captain]

About #4 of the contested issues...

What I meant was, that in the event of a poll being done, whereby:
i) the poll has been charged with being invalid such as improper procedure or setup,
ii) and the poll is close to finishing (or has finished) and actions based on the poll will soon take place,
iii) and Judges deem such actions to be serious enough that if such actions based on a faulty poll are carried out, will cause great confusion and harm,

Judges can order an injunction to prevent any actions from being taken based on the poll, until a final judgment about its validity is rendered.

This differs from Issue #3, because while an Injuction on certain actions can be placed, the game does not actually stop.

For instance, in Issue #3, if the Judges find a Trade to be possibly illegal, they would be able to halt the game - no playing of turns until the Trade's legality is resolved. Everything in-game stops.

In Issue #4, the Judges would be able to prevent such a Trade from being carried out until the Trade's legality is decided, but without stopping the game. All other game actions, such as exploring, building, other trades, war, etc... would proceed, but that actions based around that specific Trade are barred.


Hope that makes more sense.

And in case it's not obvious from my description, I prefer Injuctions Power of #4 over #3.

[Captain]

To clarify on the issue of APPEALS.

Cases where an appeal is granted does not mean the former decision is overturned. It simply means a new trial is to be had, and if and only if a different decision is made, will the original decision be declared invalid.

Appeals are only granted if the possibility exists of a different verdict, they do not necessarily force a different verdict. Cases where appeals are granted, can have the original verdict upheld.

Generally, until the new verdict is reached, the old verdict stays in place. Or an injunction can be created until the new verdict is reached.


Therefore, having some mechanism for appeal does not diminish the power of the court. It merely provides a more robust form of Justice.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Aggie
A few points and my suggestions. First in the concensus area. It now reads this way.
"9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. 2/3 is required. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain."

The 2/3 should be removed so it should read, imho:
9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain.

This way the court could rule 3-2 in a case if all 5 vote. The otherway it was said, there could be a no decison on a 3-2 vote since this isn't 2/3

Well, this isn't in the amendment yet, but you're right. I agree, this should be changed to your wording, or at least something better than what I wrote. Majority opinion it is.

[GodKing]

I like the way it is writen. I myself would volunteer to be one of the judges. Excelent discussion.

[Captain]

Clarification on NotWithStanding Clause:

I realize I haven't given any reasons for having one, but the primary reason is to allow governments to "get on with the game".

Trials can take long periods of time and Injunctions (if granted to Judges as a power) can hold up a game. A government would invoke a NotWithStanding Clause to (temporarily) ignore Court orders. Hopefully they would have a good reason, but it is not necessary. Governments who abuse this power would be severely punished at election time.

Traditionally, NWS clauses have time limits. Each invocation of the clause must be reviewed within a certain time period to be renewed.

Note that the NWS is invoked by the administration (President upon advisement of ministers) but must be "ratified" by legislature (that is, all of us active citizens). This is similar to a emergency poll to ignore a court order.

The NWS clause is used for poll/policy issues, not when people are on trial.

Also, it is a "democratic" safeguard in the sense that sometimes, Courts will reach decisions (perhaps deciding that a certain law is unconstitutional and thereby striking it down) but the general will of the populace supports such a law. Governments can invoke the NWS Clause to maintain the law.

For example, a previously existing poll (such as the naming convention) which has become enshrined as law (or tradition), does not hold up to Constitutional rules. Judges declare it invalid and order a repoll. However, the government feels this poll result is necessary for the good functioning of the game or that repolling would be disruptive at this time, and the populace supports the govt. They can temporarily ignore the court's ruling.

Generally, I don't see much use for it, but IRL, governments seldom use it either. The last time I saw it used was when Alberta used the NWS clause to uphold their law defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman (that law was deemed unconstitutional and "discriminatory" but the vast majority of Albertans wanted that law so they ignored the court ruling and used the NWS clause). While we don't have any such similar issues on these forums, who knows? maybe it'll be useful, maybe not.

[Captain]

Lastly, a forgotten issue!

Should there be a time limit for trials to be completed and verdicts rendered? Should there be a time limit for non-trial verdicts to be rendered (polling validity, etc...)?

If so, what should that time limit be?

Should there be a time limit from the start of deliberation to the end verdict to prevent endless trials or endless deliberation?

Should we also have a time limit from the time of accusation to start of deliberation to ensure claims/charges are looked at speedily?

(Deliberation refers to the hearing & trial, or in the case of non-trial issues, from when the Judges decide to have their chat.)

[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.

[Kuciwalker]

Unlimited turns -

We should not have unlimited turns. However, to get rid of the politicking, judges must wait two terms before being reappointed or reelected.

Election/Appointment -

They should be appointed, with 2/3 confirmation required.

Injunctions -

Judges should have the power to halt both a poll and the game.

Unclear/Nonexistant laws -

If it is unclear, they should be able to decide what it means and rewrite it for clarity. If there is no law, they should dismiss the case.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
A confirmation by the people would be a yes/no vote, so it's not a popularity contest really.

Exactly. There is no reason I can think of that would make the ministers better at confirming or rejecting the appointees.

Also, I think the citizenry would have more respect for the court if they had a say in its composition.

If they are merely appointed by one person and confirmed by the ministers, he will probably go with the person he knows most all else being equal.

I suppose that might be a problem with having them appointed... but I don't think this could be helped under any system.

[Sheik]

Originally posted by Captain
Lastly, a forgotten issue!

Should there be a time limit for trials to be completed and verdicts rendered? Should there be a time limit for non-trial verdicts to be rendered (polling validity, etc...)?

Yes. It should be a long time though maybe up to a week after the trail has ended.