OFFICIAL ammendment poll: Ratification of the Apolytonian Court

[Ninot]

I voted no because ya didnt let me pick the first 5 judges

lol, just kiddin, its a great ammendment.

[Guardian]

Im in favor.

[Sirotnikov]

I vote Yea

[jdjdjd]

quote:

Originally posted by GoodFella
Looks pretty good to me, I'm just wondering why the Minister of Economy and Minster of Imperial Expansion choose the one month judges. I'm sure they'd make ood decisions, but I'm just wondering how you came up with those ministries.

GF,

It was because they would be considered Domestic Advisors, FM and SMC (maybe they're the two no votes? )have less to do with Domestic Affairs, and quite frankly a choice had to be made, not enough judges for all the minsters.
Did not choose PW or City because they deal more particularly with regional matters as opposed to civ wide matters.

But again, it was to try and fit a round peg into a square hole.

No one objected, so it stayed in.

As Cappy pointed out, its just the first court, all others go by the Pres, but at staggering times, to spread influence on the court over multi presidential terms.

Actually, I'm surprised no one ever came up with alternate plan after I wrote it...but hey, I think we were all just excited to get this to vote.

[jdjdjd]

Oh, and thanks for posting this Ninot....I am amazed how fast it all happened since last night.

[Kuciwalker]

Definately YES.

[Kramerman]

Looks pretty good to me, I'm just wondering why the Minister of Economy and Minster of Imperial Expansion choose the one month judges. I'm sure they'd make ood decisions, but I'm just wondering how you came up with those ministries.

I thought that was just for the first set of justices, and then after that the President would appoint them. Though, now that I think about it, that doesn't make much since....

Kman

[Sheik]

Originally posted by Kramerman

I thought that was just for the first set of justices, and then after that the President would appoint them.

It is just for the first set.

[Luk]

I voted against this amendment because it complicate the game too much. The matters which will be under new court jurisdiction are now under jurisdiction of people. It is another step to limit the democracy and complicate whole democracy system.

Second reason: I study law in Poland at 300 years old Wroclaw University (Breslau in German, but I hate this German name) and I know that the foundation of every Constitutional court or Supreme Court is that judges know law and are educated to solve the problems of law matter. In our game I do not recognize nobody who finished a law or even study a law. Maybe someone is, but in this amenment everyone could be a judge even if he does not know what is the law and what are the rules of law. Most of judges will be a good politicians and friends of president (who can be elected in pseudodemocratic way), not people who know a law. You people complicate this game as much as you can.

Third - this amendment is not good because it is against a spirit of the constitution, where there is a foundation rule that every office should limited to the number of terms. It complicates the meaning of Constitution and is contra the law meaning of the current Code of Laws

Most of you won't understand what I sad, first because of my bad English, second because you never study law

[Apocalypse]

Luk: We need judges so that when problems arise such as with the election, they can quickly be dealt with. There will also be organization. Waiting 5 days for an official poll is too long.

And yes, it would be good if we all understood law better, but people like me, Trip, jdjdjd, Togas, etc are all smart enough to know what to do.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Your English is not that harsh. I frequent few international boards and have seen much worse. Better than me trying to speak German, for which I have been mocked elsewhere.


You bring up some decent points, too. I can understand your concerns of removing power to the people. There is no way, however, we will get a bunch of lawyers to sit as our judges. World law does not matter, just our constitution. Each judge can familiarize themselves with it, and will need to. They will be held responsible for their decisions.

I do not think that it will confuse or be against the spirit of the constitution, however. The Government and the Law are seperate, and should be lest we contaminate the law with politics.

[Sheik]

Originally posted by Luk

Second reason: I study law in Poland at 300 years old Wroclaw University (Breslau in German, but I hate this German name) and I know that the foundation of every Constitutional court or Supreme Court is that judges know law and are educated to solve the problems of law matter. In our game I do not recognize nobody who finished a law or even study a law. Maybe someone is, but in this amenment everyone could be a judge even if he does not know what is the law and what are the rules of law. Most of judges will be a good politicians and friends of president (who can be elected in pseudodemocratic way), not people who know a law. You people complicate this game as much as you can.

Third - this amendment is not good because it is against a spirit of the constitution, where there is a foundation rule that every office should limited to the number of terms. It complicates the meaning of Constitution and is contra the law meaning of the current Code of Laws

Most of you won't understand what I sad, first because of my bad English, second because you never study law

This not some country that requires you to know a billion rules and regulations. Here anyone can interpret the constitution and be a judge. We made this constitution and we can interpret it, it isn't that complex. In the United States most types of judges are appointed for life (no term limit) and Presidents and governers do pick political allies and friends as judges. Sure few of us have studied law but most of us understand it's basic principles.

And your english isn't bad it is actually just fine.

The following paragraph is from http://www.uscourts.gov/understand02/content_5_0.html

Justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the courts of appeals and the district courts, and judges of the Court of International Trade, are appointed under Article III of the Constitution by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. Article III judges are appointed for life, and they can only be removed through the impeachment process. Although there are no special qualifications to become a judge of these courts, those who are nominated are typically very accomplished private or government attorneys, judges in state courts, magistrate judges or bankruptcy judges, or law professors. The judiciary plays no role in the nomination or confirmation process.

[Luk]

Well... Im only stating my position because some people above wanted those few people who voted against to explain why did the do it...

And I noticed that most of you thought tha instition of court is so good that voting "no" is without any arguments.

And I know that you can have your own opinion, as a democratic man I know that everybody should have a right to speak freely.

I think that speed of the game is not so important. Most important is the community, democracy and Role Play. I think we have a time to play and we should not run quicly to the end of the game, because then it ends to quickly. I think on a hard matters we should stop a game and disscus, it will be better for our nation, and it will be with a spirit of the foundation of this game - A Democracy.

But every Constitiution should be clear and should have a clear foundation (it is very helpful for judging according to constitution). If we agree that judges could be in office without limit of terms, and Executives not it will be the clash of the meaning of law.

I think that decisions of court should be at least in this situation under peoples controle. I mean that every decision of the court could be questioned by the people by the constitutional majority of 2/3 voters

[Luk]

First of all - In European Constitutional Courts there are limits of the terms (one term in life in majority of CC), second is that USA has different system of judging, many says worse then in Europe (some call USA - The Dictature of lawers) and third, I agree that if people who would be nominated for life in this game would know law and rules of law, it would be a not dangerous situation. Now it is dangerous situation, because judge will be more politician then judge. You all people think that you know law - it is simple, read the article and examine it in your heart and that is it. If it would be so easy, that study of law would not be necessery. Studying of law is hard, you learn how to judge, how to overcome the contradictions etc. etc. There are many rules etc. etc.

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
So who voted against it?

Yeah who? Let's go get'em now...
I see you over there Luk! Good arguments, man.
Why don't you join the Thinkers Guild? We have al lot of fun... thinking fun and drinking fun....
I must admit I voted Yes, but in some doubt.
(Not much, since I have been into those discussions for a while)


If the people would vote so positively in the future too, the amendment could be rewritten to extend it with other important clauses. If that is needed?