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?

[Togas]

Originally posted by Luk
Second reason: I study law in Poland ... 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.

The foundation of every Constitutional Court is the belief in the rule of law.

Public confidence in said court depends on the wisdom and logic of the decisions made by the learned members of the Judiciary. But I don't believe the public demands (or the Constitution demands for that matter) that the Judiciary be trained in matters of law.

I'm an attorney. I got my mind bent in law school. I could probably stand up and say that only us lawyers oughta run the courts but I won't and I can't. It would be egotistical for me to do so.

I believe there are very competant individuals amongst us who can properly read the text of the applicable law, apply the facts to it, analyze the issue, and come to a rational conclusion. All that is truely required is the wisdom, patience, and impartiality to do so.

Certainly it would be favorable to have someone trained in statuatory interpretation, conflicts of law, precedent, procedure, analysis and so forth, but it's not required. So long as the citizens are confident with the decisions made by The Court, and confident that their Judiciary are wise and impartial, all is well.

As for the Presidental appointments, it is possible that politics will play a role in it. We hope the citizens will respond if so. Those of us who worked on the ammendment felt that the President should be trusted to make the picks, but also included a confirmation vote by the people, who have the final say.

Luk, if you do feel that you have the legal training necessary and that you don't want "lay people" ruining The Court, please put your name in for consideration as a Justice.

--Togas

[Luk]

Well, As I said I did not finish my study, and I feel that I should learn much to fully understand all of law education, I want to be a judge and I think I will be a good judge, but I know that Im not prepared to be a judge now.

Well I only stated that there is a possibility that judges in the game will not habe much common with Judges in real life, and it is institution which could cause a real problems, which is again the rule which limits a democracy.

I think judges in game will not be seperate judical branch, but pseudo second form of executive branch. With a possibility to be in office for long, long time. It is danger that in futher the Senior of Apolytonian Court will be more important then president.

[Luk]

And I think that next argument that many people here don't know anything about law is that we did not decide what system of judging will implement. The European Continental or Anglo-Saxon. The main difference (but not the only one) is a power of precedense which in Europe has no power of creating the law, and in Common Law has such a power.

[Kuciwalker]

We're not getting into complex issues. We're not going to have lots of structure, etc. - just a group of people who expedite matters when the game has gotten clogged up, (points at Presidential election :P)

[Sheik]

Originally posted by Togas
I got my mind bent in law school. I could probably stand up and say that only us lawyers oughta run the courts but I won't and I can't. It would be egotistical for me to do so.

Thought you might like this quote:

"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers."
- H.L Mencken

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Luk
Well, As I said I did not finish my study, and I feel that I should learn much to fully understand all of law education, I want to be a judge and I think I will be a good judge, but I know that Im not prepared to be a judge now.

Well I only stated that there is a possibility that judges in the game will not habe much common with Judges in real life, and it is institution which could cause a real problems, which is again the rule which limits a democracy.

I think judges in game will not be seperate judical branch, but pseudo second form of executive branch. With a possibility to be in office for long, long time. It is danger that in futher the Senior of Apolytonian Court will be more important then president.

Well, you have some good points in some of all your arguements, perhaps if you were in the discussion over designing this bill we could of incorporated some of your ideas into the bill. But now that the bill is up for vote, and it looks like it is going to be passed, you could bring up your issues on a thread and the others who have issues with this to-be-ammendment can discuss changes to be made and attempt to pass another ammendment to make those changes.... thats the beauty of democracy. If you don't like something, you can always try and change it with almost unlimited tries in some cases.

Kman

[Sheik]

bump.

VOTE

[GodKing]

Luk;
Thank you for responding. We do appreciate the concerns you have. In this instance, the court should have in truth very little work. Only when a citizen complains, then the complaint must be based on a point of law, should the judges become involved. I do believe that we need some system for dispute resolution, and after considerable deliberation and compromise, this is the system we have come up with.

Here in the US, as noted above, many of our Federal, high-level judges are appointed for life. Many of the local level judges are actually elected officials. We didn't feel that either situation would work in our situation. (Many of the people that were involved in the discussions were US nationals, thus many of the things are based on the US model.) The solution we came up with is something fair.

In terms of being trained in the law, I think that a) it is a game (so please keep perspective) b) The people will be watching anything the court does, and if the people object to the way things worked out the judges will be removed and the people will pass laws changing the situation; c) our laws should be (and are I think) simple enough that anybody should be able to read it and come up with a fair and reasonable understanding. For all these reasons, I don’t thing it is necessary to have ‘professional’ justices.

You have made several good points, and noted several good concerns. Why don’t you volunteer to be on the list of people who would like to be a judge. Because of all your reservations, and the fact that you want to be one in real life, I think you might make a good one for us here.

Your English isn’t that bad, so don’t concern yourself about it. I’d be willing to bet that I have at least two misspelled words in this post, that I couldn’t even tell you about. And English is my first language…..

[Luk]

OK... I will not reapeat my views on this matter, because I said, that if Court will have a little work to do so why we create such a court... This matters should be dissolved by peoples, because if we agree that judges will not be educated in law (it is a foundation of every Judical Branch), so how we can name it a Judical Branch...? Why we create a Court, when we could decide about all cases together as members of Apolytonia. The main reason of creating a Judical Branch should be:
1) To much work to do to decide it in seperate referendum
2) Judges will be educated in law and they will be deciding in the name of law

That two reasons don't not exist.

Why I do not applied for a Judge Job?

Because I know that Mr. President will not choose me because I was against him in the elections

[GodKing]

Luk;
the first time the prez only picks 2. Other ministers pick the other 3 judges.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by GodKing
Luk;
Thank you for responding. We do appreciate the concerns you have. In this instance, the court should have in truth very little work. Only when a citizen complains, then the complaint must be based on a point of law, should the judges become involved. I do believe that we need some system for dispute resolution, and after considerable deliberation and compromise, this is the system we have come up with.

Here in the US, as noted above, many of our Federal, high-level judges are appointed for life. Many of the local level judges are actually elected officials. We didn't feel that either situation would work in our situation. (Many of the people that were involved in the discussions were US nationals, thus many of the things are based on the US model.) The solution we came up with is something fair.

In terms of being trained in the law, I think that a) it is a game (so please keep perspective) b) The people will be watching anything the court does, and if the people object to the way things worked out the judges will be removed and the people will pass laws changing the situation; c) our laws should be (and are I think) simple enough that anybody should be able to read it and come up with a fair and reasonable understanding. For all these reasons, I don’t thing it is necessary to have ‘professional’ justices.

You have made several good points, and noted several good concerns. Why don’t you volunteer to be on the list of people who would like to be a judge. Because of all your reservations, and the fact that you want to be one in real life, I think you might make a good one for us here.

Your English isn’t that bad, so don’t concern yourself about it. I’d be willing to bet that I have at least two misspelled words in this post, that I couldn’t even tell you about. And English is my first language…..

Actually, no misspellings GodKing, though you did use 'thing' instead of 'think'.

[GodKing]

Wow, g & k aren't even close on the keyboard.... what was I think(g)ing....

Sometimes, even I get lucky (or is it unlucky because someone actually checked and didn't find anything(k)).

[Ninot]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Luk [/SIZE

Because I know that Mr. President will not choose me because I was against him in the elections

Luk, I hold nothing against you in the same way I hold nothing against Togas. I would glady see you as an applicant

however
as has been stated, Between me, the VP, and the other two ministers, we can only pick 5 judges max. With the ammount of awesome candidates we have, its tough to choose.. so I warn everyone, there will be a few good candidates left out, just because there are too many good ones to actually choose.

[Thud]

Oooh. This is going to be one close poll. I hope it manages to get 2/3rds yes before slipping off the first page...

[Kramerman]

Oooh. This is going to be one close poll. I hope it manages to get 2/3rds yes before slipping off the first page...

Crinkey! My sarcasm detector is off the charts...
There has been some decent arguements against this bill, notebly by Luk. Its possible there are a ton of people who have yet to vote who may also have their reservations abou it. You never know. Either way it wont be passed unanimously like I had hoped. That would of been cool... but no gold star for me.

Kman