Constitutional Law Review: Court Jurisdiction over enforcing site rules

[Gilgamensch]

OK, so again:

the court can make it's own rules.
Official threads can be seen as being taken place in front of the court.

Can the court decide on those? Yes it can.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

it can't . iirc there's no line in the con saying the court can make rules. feel free to prove me wrong

[Gilgamensch]

(a) The Court may make its own rules of procedure and enforce them upon citizens who are before it, so long as such rules are in accordance with the constitution.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

well, but the citizens aren't before the court, unless they are trialed

[Gilgamensch]

That's what I said: OFFICIAL polls (resolution/amendment/election) could be seen as being in front of the court, as being overseen by court.

SO the court could rule upon those rules on it's own.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

for which it will have to check what the con (since there are no laws) says about the matter and then act accordingly. but the con says nothing. and i should have added an in the above post. citizens can't be trialed, since we have no state attorney

[Gilgamensch]

Still don't see your point.

As you said there are no rules, so if the court would say:

No off-topic in OFFICIAL-polls, it is not against the connie. If somebody violates it, it would be breaking court rules and could be 'punished'.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

it would be a restriction of the right of freedom of speech, which is mentioned in the con, but there isn't mentioned any right to restrict it in the con

[Gilgamensch]

read beginning of this thread, there are limits........

[H Tower]

Gilg:

This is one of the first times I've ever seen you come out and really debate a point of the CON.

As for your interpretation.... well, that's an interesting view.

And the court CAN make rulings without a case being filed, see case 007.

[Gilgamensch]

H Tower,

I DO like to debate, but certain things where so clear, that there wasn't really a need for.

For case number 007:

That is the exception of the rules. But otherwise..............

For my interesting point of view:

Some people might see it as stretching the con..... for me:

As the election has to be started by the court (3Ia) and can make it's own rules (III4a) and can rule upon those (III4c) and we have (III1a) and as the main point (V1a):

(a) The Court is empowered to oversee all elections and is empowered to resolve any election disputes according to the rules in this Constitution.

I don't see any reason, why people are saying it is not in the constitution. For me, it looks more like, that those who don't agree with should come back with an Amendment-poll.

And as I said before, I do not want to punish the citizens, I just want to have 'better' behaviour. It is normal to be sometimes off-topic, but what happened in the election-poll, wasn't what we should have had in there.......

And some people said: Let's leave it only to the our MOD, but why? It is us playing (within the rules of 'poly), so we should try to rule ourselves, without the need of a MOD. I see the MOD more as an (BORG) interface between the server hosting us and ourselves, not as a 'real'-function (and the need) to control us.

Still would like to see more opinions, it seems to be just us discussing here

[H Tower]

Still would like to see more opinions, it seems to be just us discussing here

I think all the legal mumbo jumbo we were throwing around scared off everyone

[MrBaggins]

(a) The Court is empowered to oversee all elections and is empowered to resolve any election disputes according to the rules in this Constitution.

Ahh... but what about nomination disputes

[H Tower]

I always thought you might have won if you filed a case, but you didn't, so now we'll never know.

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by H Tower


I think all the legal mumbo jumbo we were throwing around scared off everyone

As it is a discussion about our constitution, what do people expect, that we just use words? It has to be based on facts.....