Official: Formation of an Emergency Court to resolve our current situation

[Timeline]

This is an official proposal, that we form a small emergency court to make a ruling on the Presidential poll, and resolve our current dismal situation.

My friends, I have just spent 4 hours closely reviewing the Court thread, and trying to formulate an amendment that we could all vote upon and create some kind of body of Justice that could deal with our situation.

Unfortunately I realized there are just too many loose ends that need to be tied at this moment. More polling and debate must be endured before we are ready to install something as far reaching, and monumental as an Apolyton High Court.

Therefore, I have the idea that a small, temporary court, to deal with our election crisis may be in order.

Should we form an emergency court to review our Presidential election, and make a ruling on it?

This is an official poll, with a simple majority required to pass. Upon its close in 3 days it will initiate construction of a court should most be in favor of it.

Here is what you are voting for by voting yes:

This court will only have jurisdiction regarding the current Presidential Election, and no other elections. It will NOT be granted the right to pass Judicial Law relating to future elections.

It will obtain information from the administrators regarding details of the election. It will review these details CLOSELY, and assess facts such as what might have happened if non-members had not voted.

They will be required to make a ruling on this matter within one week from when this poll will end (July 26), and the court will be disbanded after this date.

Members

After careful consideration, I have decided these following members will serve us best in this court. Also, they could be voted on for approval after the court is formed.

Captain
jdjdjd
Godking

Powers

This court will posses the power to review all data available on this Presidential election, and institute final rulings based on that obtained information.

It will have the power to interpret the constitution as it relates to this matter, regarding the use of two simultaneous Presidents. Again, decisions made will only effect this election.

It will have the power to decide weather to remove non-member votes or not. And after the poll closes, come to a consensus over the winner.

It will have the responsibility to report its findings to the people, and most important, maintain neutrality throughout its investigation, and in its final decision.


By voting yes here, you agreeing to all of the above.

[Spiffor]

Sorry Timeline, but I have to disagree with you, and here is why :

- this problem is complex enough so that we don't tinker something in haste to solve it.
- after some debating (where everybody is accepted, not just 3 people), we'll know what good questions to ask.
- the people will answer these good questions through a poll.
- when people build something in haste, it's much more difficult getting rid of it than building it. We'll have a far-from-perfect judicial system which will last way too long.

Until this is done (a matter of 6-7 days max), we let Ninot and Trip do as they please. By this time, the true and debated judicial system should be up and running, if the people didn't answer the questions clearly.

In fewer words : your hasty proposition will bring more evil than good, that's why I disapprove you.

[jdd2007]

I agree with Spiff

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN

[The Dark Lord]

Righty-oh. I agree with what has been said.

I think Timeline is mad because he might have two people above him instead of just one....

[Timeline]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Sorry Timeline, but I have to disagree with you, and here is why :

- this problem is complex enough so that we don't tinker something in haste to solve it.
- after some debating (where everybody is accepted, not just 3 people), we'll know what good questions to ask.
- the people will answer these good questions through a poll.
- when people build something in haste, it's much more difficult getting rid of it than building it. We'll have a far-from-perfect judicial system which will last way too long.

Until this is done (a matter of 6-7 days max), we let Ninot and Trip do as they please. By this time, the true and debated judicial system should be up and running, if the people didn't answer the questions clearly.

In fewer words : your hasty proposition will bring more evil than good, that's why I disapprove you.

As for things about getting rid of it, it will be disbanded automatically in 10 days, after a ruling has been made.

Perhaps it may bring about some possible problems, but we need people who are neutral and can look at the facts to decide what is going on here, imo.

This is kind of like a test run for our coming Apolyton court, and I think it's very much in order.

Trip and Ninot gave their suggestions over how to handle it. It seems the people disagree.

Now we need a "committee" as it were, to look at the facts and decide what to do.

This is just my opinion but I think alot of people would like to see a court formed to handle this situation.

[Timeline]

Originally posted by The Dark Lord
Righty-oh. I agree with what has been said.

I think Timeline is mad because he might have two people above him instead of just one....

lol Darklord, yea that would be a bummer

[Robber Baron]

I'm kind of uncomfortable with giving one minister the authority to appoint three citizens who will, effectively, decide an election.

[Timeline]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
I'm kind of uncomfortable with giving one minister the authority to appoint three citizens who will, effectively, decide an election.

Who would you suggest?

And as far as I know, none of these ones have said much about their feelings on this matter....but I could be wrong, lemme check.

[Togas]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
I'm kind of uncomfortable with giving one minister the authority to appoint three citizens who will, effectively, decide an election.

Ditto

It would be more prudent now to just poll the populace to resolve this conflict.

The fact of the matter is that we DO NOT have a remedy under the law to resolve this dispute, so our only course of action is to have a democratic agreement reached by the citizenry for now, and then put into place a Constitutional system to resolve future conflicts.

It is more Unconstitutional to have the VP choose three citizens to resolve this conflict than to have the masses resolve this conflict.

--Togas

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by Timeline


Who would you suggest?

And as far as I know, none of these ones have said much about their feelings on this matter....but I could be wrong, lemme check.

I had no particular problems with the citizens you suggested, and I respect you for stepping forward with a proposal for a solution.
It was more the principle of the precedent, and the way it structured things so that a decision would flow, essentially, from an individual person. (You, in this case, but again, my objection is not personal: nobody should have that kind of appointment authority.)

[notyoueither]

Way to try to short circuit a prepoll discussion thread Timeline.

[Timeline]

Yes, I understand Robber Baron. I was only trying to do as Togos said: "The fact of the matter is that we DO NOT have a remedy under the law to resolve this dispute, so our only course of action is to have a democratic agreement reached by the citizenry for now."

Notice the poll at the top.

But it appears this idea has been shot down fairly quick. At least we know that we'll be facing this together, even itf it takes a bit longer.

I can see the benefits of everyone being involved, but I felt a court would be faster, and probably just as effective.

But anyway, thanks for the thoughts guys.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Way to try to short circuit a prepoll discussion thread Timeline.

yea, he is a jackass isnt he?

i vote to impeach!

[Timeline]

What did I ever do to you?

[GodKing]

I think it is a good idea, but as my name is involved, I shall not vote. Thank you for the consideration.

I feel that there should only be one president. The compromise that trip & ninot proposed does not meet the intention of the constitution, althought there is no violation thereof. IMO, it is only an issue if the election ends in a tie. Else, per the constitution, the person with the most votes wins. End of issue. I don't think the poll closes until tomarrow, so let us wait and see.

In regards to the issue of non-citizens voting, that is something the court could (should?) look at for future elections. In this one I feel it is irrelevant at this time.