Amendment: Judicial Branch

Jon Shafer · July 4, 2002, 19:50

We have the Executive. We have Ministers. Time for judges. Ministers judging their own actions may be a problem someday, so it's logical to create some sort of judicial system. That and the problem of certain things coming up that aren't in our Constitution. After all, we can't make an amendment for any problem that may arise. Ministers deciding upon themselves could lead to a huge ol' mess, so we have to find a way to deal with that.

Okay, now for the important stuff...
Things to be determined are:

Number of judges
Some people want 3 judges. Some want 5, 7, 9 or even more. So what do you guys think?

How they become judges
How will they become judges? Appointed by the President, approved by Congress, just like the US system? Voted upon (I'm not sure how that would work though... "I pledge to be honest" "No! I pledge to be honester!"

) Any other ideas?

Term length limits
How long will their terms be, and what will the limit be? Obviously, life terms in this game may span, oh, 5000 years (

), so that won't be possible. Will they have 2 month terms? Or 1 month like ministers? Will they have the 2-term limit like Ministers? Or more?

Jurisdiction
What will they get to make decisions on? Anything? Can they simply declare something to be unconstitutional, or does someone have to bring up a grievance? Will certain things be off-limit to judicial interference?

Once I get some good ideas I'll make an official amendment poll.

Jon Shafer · July 4, 2002, 19:54

Trying to be the unbiased guy I am (

), I'll just lay out what's to be discussed first post, then give my ideas in another one.
I think we should have 5 judges. We don't have that many citizens, so any more would lead to a bloated court system that would be impossible to manage (can you imagine trying to get the input of 9 people on a constant basis?).
As I stated in the first post, I think that Presidential appointment and Ministerial approval is fine. Unless someone comes up with a better idea (elections for JUDGES would be incredibly foolish).
I think terms should be 2 months (so that the President isn't constantly appointing people), and there should be a limit of 2 terms. 4 months is quite a while.
Not quite sure about the last point... I don't see many places where the judges couldn't rule over something. Of course all of their decisions would be entirely official, so there may be some areas where this may be a problem.

ThePlagueRat · July 4, 2002, 20:23

That could be an useful idea...

We need someone to clarify and formulate the constitution somewhat, and also to gather reports of abuse and potential holes. Maintaining a democratic development, without having power to sentence anyone to anything. Not prosecuting citizens, but prosecuting suspicious events. Maybe I could take the job?

Jon Shafer · July 4, 2002, 20:26

First, we have to determine what the job entails, then we have to see if 2/3 of the people want it.

LordImpact · July 4, 2002, 20:31

The more checks and balances the better. It sounds like a good idea. After all, it would be the judges job to interprit the constitution and make sure noone abuses their power. 5 judges sounds reasonable to me, as does the two term limit, the term length, and the appointment by the president with ministerial approval. There aren't all that many laws now, but I suppse there will be once more amendments are made. I think the judges would have to review any and all laws the president and/or his cabinet make for constitutionality. Also, if anyone has a problem with any decision it should be put up to judicial review, again, to check for constitutionality. I think an amendment to the constitution clearly defining the powers of the court is in order, if it is decided to create a judicial branch. And I don't see any reasons why there shouldn't be one.

Spiffor · July 4, 2002, 20:34

Except to decide if a poll is legitimate or not, we don't need any judcial system. Let's face it, justice is meant to decide punishments to people who behave badly, unlike consitutional court.
Problem is : we have no way to punish people who behave badly, except reporting them to the mods, massively ignore them, or ban them from a responsibility post. To do this, we don't need any judge, it's the call of each of us.

However, I'm perfectly fine with having a constitutional court. No need to have so many people (5). I think 2 judges would be enough.

To nominate these constitutional judges, elections are the best way, or rather the "least bad". It will avoid wanabee judges to be guarddogs of the Prez (or any appointer), and these judges will represent the interests of the people. I know we'd ideally need judges who work for the sake of the law, and nothing else. However, the Law cannot appoint anyone, so we need unsatisfying elections.

ThePlagueRat · July 4, 2002, 20:42

Of course! Discussion goes on... tomorrow we might have more opinions.

Some general description is mentioned above already.
Use this as a job description, and perhaps some additions/changes, but don't make it too complicated.
It could be named Supreme Court?

But how many members? 5? 3? (should be an odd number)
Then you make a decision.

And after that you could post an official poll about it. And we'll see what this fine people think...

ThePlagueRat · July 4, 2002, 20:48

There is another point Spiffor.

No personal guard dogs!
I think we're onto something here.

Spiffor · July 4, 2002, 20:50

I don't like "supreme court" because it sounds too American, and we're Apolytonians. Also, for us non-Americans, we could imagine a "supreme court" punishes supreme crimes (rather than discussing constitution).
"Constitutional court" is a much clearer name IMHO.

You're right about having an odd number, I forgot this. I still think "the less the better". There will barely be anough work for one person, having 5 or 7 judges would be absurd.

LordImpact · July 4, 2002, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
However, I'm perfectly fine with having a constitutional court. No need to have so many people (5). I think 2 judges would be enough.

An even number of judges would be a disaster. What if they were divided on the issue? A minimum of 3 judges is required. After all they're interpriting the constitution. Different people ahve different interpritations. I agree that it should only be a constitutional court. Their only job would be to make sure new laws and in game decisions are constitutional.

ThePlagueRat · July 4, 2002, 21:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't like "supreme court" because it sounds too American, and we're Apolytonians.

Also being a non-Amreican, I could perhaps talk to a "hoeyesterettsjustitiarius" in my home country asking for a proper name.

Just kidding... An English (UK)
word for it would be great. Don't remember it, though.
(They also wear funny looking wigs over there)

FYI: That was actually the longest word in norwegian, which is a title for judges in our supreme court.

Jon Shafer · July 4, 2002, 21:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
To nominate these constitutional judges, elections are the best way, or rather the "least bad". It will avoid wanabee judges to be guarddogs of the Prez (or any appointer), and these judges will represent the interests of the people. I know we'd ideally need judges who work for the sake of the law, and nothing else. However, the Law cannot appoint anyone, so we need unsatisfying elections.

How would one campaign for a position as a judge anyways? And how would you pick? It would be even more political and chaotic than minister elections are. All you would get is "Hey, I'm running in an election for a judicial position, and, uh, well, I'm an honest guy, so, yeah, vote for me!"

Aggie · July 4, 2002, 22:18

I think we should have a constitutional court. Here's my suggestion
1) 3 judges
2) appointed by president but approved by the ministers on a simple majority vote
3) can be removed by a 3/4 vote of the people
4) main job, judge the correctness of polls and see if actions are constitutional
5) 2 month terms and can't have consectitive terms
6) can only judge cases brought before them(ie no snooping looking for cases)
7) trial would be a special chat session with each side presenting one round of arguements, to keep it simple
perhaps other comments could be pmed to them before and after chat. Decision handed down next day.

Just some ideas
Aggie

LordImpact · July 4, 2002, 22:22

well said Aggie! I wholeheartedly agree.

Robber Baron · July 4, 2002, 23:08

The big question here might be, would the judges have the right to bring action against the president for playing counter to the will of the people?
That sounds like a very sticky issue, and a real mess. If the judges' jurisdiction is limited to determining the validity of polling, I'd say it sounds like a good idea.
Odd number of judges (no ties) ... Small number of judges (we want well-qualified people who really know the game and the constitution) ... equals 3.
Question: since this function might be real sensitive politically speaking, should we try to somehow disqualify the real politicians? (The DIA diehards, and the UFC ultras) Can't think of any effective way of making this kind of determination, but it does seem to me this function could be a way for one side to muck up the other. Maybe, all three judges can't be from the same party/coalition?
Or maybe I shouldn't worry about it.
One other issue: we would want to set up procedures for impeaching judges who flagrantly abuse their position.

Jon Shafer · July 4, 2002, 23:34

Say that a judge must have a 2/3 vote among the ministers to be approved. That way, it would be a lot harder to get radicals into office.

Aggie · July 4, 2002, 23:50

Thanks for the support lordimpact. Robber Baron I have some of your same concerns, actually some are mentioned in my points #6 and #3. I think if a president or other elected officer acts against the will of the people or constitution AND somebody brought it to the court they would have to decide if the person acted improperly. However they wouldn't have the authority to remove the person, but their verdict could be used in an impeachment vote perhaps. Of course we could have a case similar to the cherokee tribe vs andrew jackson where the indians won the court case but since the will of the people was against them no action was taken against the president(one of the largest miscarrages of justice ever imho). So its possible that a president could do something and then the court could declare it wrong, but if most people support the president little could happen. As far as the political leanings of the judges I agree that they should be(as much as is possible) fairly nonpolitcal. Perhaps we can say that a judge shall not have held politcal office during the previous/following month of their term. Perhaps they should not have participated in political debates or campaigns either. Though of course they still keep their right to vote.
Best Regards
Aggie

Jon Shafer · July 4, 2002, 23:55

The court would judge actions, and may deem certain decisions inappropriate (not much you can do after the action is taken, if it is 1 move, but if it's a more drawn-out act). The people may impeach a minister if he acts against their will. That's how I understand things, at least.

notyoueither · July 4, 2002, 23:55

Election would probably be best. The people need to feel they are being looked out for, not the politicians.

Terms and term limits. 2 or 3 months would be about right. There's not much to do, so there's little point electing them every month like the ministers. Limits? Should there be any? The goal should be to have fair minded people in the seats, and again the job doesn't require doing too much. The people can probably be trusted to enforce limits on those who overstay their usefulness.

What would they judge? Polls and constitutional questions sounds good. Is there anything else?

How would an issue be properly sent to them? Any citizen can send a PM or post a thread? Can't see them going out looking for things. That would be tacky.

How would they function? All judges required to vote on any given issue? Not everybody is always going to be available. What about a quorum? 5 judges, 3 required to decide an issue.

How would they hear cases and deliberate? By chat? By forum? Most courts take as much time as is needed after arguments to post a ruling. They certainly must be able to discuss amongst themselves, such as by PM.

Any restrictions on who can be one? Must be a member on the list seems like a no brainer. Can't hold other office or function while being a judge? They are supposed to remain detached from such things in most systems.

Most importantly... what force would thier rulings have? It's not as if they can have someone hauled off to prison. Pretty obvious they can nullify a poll and thus render that poll 'unofficial'. For unconstitutional actions, is thier ruling simply a public rebuke for individuals? Can they order a minister out of an office? Under what conditions?

Finally, precedent and law. It is common throughout the English speaking world that courts can make laws. These 'common' laws can be overridden by acts of parliaments or other elected bodies (subject of course to constitutional challenges). Should the court be able to review past practice and the constitution to arrive at new 'laws' in new situations to govern ourselves by in future similar situations? That is what a ruling is after all. It's a decision of what is right, or wrong given a certain set of circumstances and as governed by the constitution and all other laws of the land.

notyoueither · July 5, 2002, 00:01

PS. What if there are 5 and 4 show up and tie? Or 3 and only 2 show up?

Should there be a senior judge whose vote wins ties? ie. He votes one way, there is a tie, the way he or she voted prevails.

Jon Shafer · July 5, 2002, 00:03

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
PS. What if there are 5 and 4 show up and tie? Or 3 and only 2 show up?

Should there be a senior judge whose vote wins ties? ie. He votes one way, there is a tie, the way he or she voted prevails.

Ack, this is getting so complicated.

A 'supreme judge' wouldn't be a bad idea... we'd have to determine what he can do though...

Sheeze, this may be a long amendment before we're through

Sheik · July 5, 2002, 00:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
I think we should have a constitutional court. Here's my suggestion
1) 3 judges
2) appointed by president but approved by the ministers on a simple majority vote
3) can be removed by a 3/4 vote of the people
4) main job, judge the correctness of polls and see if actions are constitutional
5) 2 month terms and can't have consectitive terms
6) can only judge cases brought before them(ie no snooping looking for cases)
7) trial would be a special chat session with each side presenting one round of arguements, to keep it simple
perhaps other comments could be pmed to them before and after chat. Decision handed down next day.

I like the sound of this, though I would like to see 5 - 9 judges and no term limit.

notyoueither · July 5, 2002, 00:14

We barely have 60 voters at any one time. There are 7 or 8 posts in the government. I don't see 9 justices.

notyoueither · July 5, 2002, 00:16

Yes. That's a good idea. But 75%? That's a large majority, especially if one major party or the other digs in in support of the subject. How about 67%, like everything and everyone else that is really important.

LordImpact · July 5, 2002, 00:19

I personally prefer the tribunal. I dont really see a need for 5+ justices provided they are honest and neutral as far parties are concerened. Also a line about "no justice tampering" should be added. There should be a penalty if it happens. If its done by an elected official they should be removed from office. I dunno about someone who doesnt hold an office though.

Kloreep · July 5, 2002, 01:15

IMO, its main function should be declaring whether or not supposedly official polls should be regarded as such in cases of doubt. As Trip pointed out, there's really not much you can do if an official disobeys the people's will; the only real recourse is impeachment by the people. But perhaps they should be able to call a one-week halt to turnchats so that impeachment polls may be held?

I agree with NYE's 5 judge, three needed suggestion (with the Supreme Judge to break ties, of course).

Duddha · July 5, 2002, 02:38

Good idea Trip.

Quote:

I think we should have a constitutional court. Here's my suggestion
1) 3 judges
2) appointed by president but approved by the ministers on a simple majority vote
3) can be removed by a 3/4 vote of the people
4) main job, judge the correctness of polls and see if actions are constitutional
5) 2 month terms and can't have consectitive terms
6) can only judge cases brought before them(ie no snooping looking for cases)
7) trial would be a special chat session with each side presenting one round of arguements, to keep it simple
perhaps other comments could be pmed to them before and after chat. Decision handed down next day.

Thumbs up!

Duddha · July 5, 2002, 02:41

I suggest Sir Ralph as a choice for Chief Justice.

MrWhereItsAt · July 5, 2002, 05:11

Now here's an amendment that I have no problem with. After we got going in the Civ2 game, the only amendment we had (and it wasn't even phrased in our 'Poly "legalese"

) was due to a Constitutional Committee I started that met for a while. UberKruX was a very short-term member.

We decided when there was a new issue that we hadn't clarified that needed polling on (consecutive term limits) - and set up a poll.

I see the same sort of thing here - a group that hears what the people believe should be polled on and polls on these issues, responsible for deciding on poll validity, on whether (EXTREME case) a Minister should be impeached, and also on punishments for problematic citizens (over-spamming or playing ahead).

For me - I skipped ahead in this thread, but I liked Trip's first post ideas. NO elections for judges please! If anyone has a serious problem with someone being a judge (or Minister), then they should let the VP or someone know and get a poll set up. Real grievances only.

We should otherwise have these judges (3 or 5 I reckon) to listen to any complaints and to be sensible enough to decide who is just sh*t-stirring, and who has a legitimate complaint. The Prez/the Cabinet should choose these judges, as we should all have seen by now that our MPs are nothing if not responsible decision-makers, each and every one.

If not, well no-one has complained yet.

mtgillespie · July 5, 2002, 07:02

I think 6 judges. On any decision, 3 meet, and which 3 changes each time. 2 are UFC, 2 DIA, and 2 Independent or from minor parties. Each party appoints their own 2 judges, and one of the independants which will come from a list of people who put themselves forward. We don't need electioneering threads, it will be up to the parties to decide who's been both sensible and active on the boards. On each decision, we have 1 UFC, 1 DIA and 1 Independent.

Each judge has a 2 month term, except in the first instance where 3 will have 2 month and 3 1 month. This means that we're not changing all the judges at the same time, we have a rolling change.

No judges will hold another office while in power, or in the month afterwards.

If we get another major party, we can alter the proportions accordingly when it becomes neccessary, with a 2/3 majority obviously.