AMENDMENT: Allow judges to hold certain executive positions

mapfi · April 21, 2003, 11:38

I've proposed this and the echo was rather ambiguous but not too many actually replied. So I'm putting it to a vote to see what the group thinks about it.

I propose the following changes to the con:

Quote:

Article III, 2.(e) A Judge may not serve in other governmental posts.

to:
The senior judge may not serve in any other governmental post including delegate positions. Judges may also hold an executive position excluding President. They may not be delegate of the President.

and

Quote:

Article V, 1.(f) No citizen may be a candidate for an elected office if such candidacy might cause this citizen to be in more than one elected office simultaneously.

to:
No citizen may be a candidate for an elected office if such candidacy might cause this citizen to be in more than one elected office of the same branch of government simultaneously.

and new:
Article V, 3. (after c) If a judge is a party in a case he is replaced by the President for the ruling on that case.

This poll expires on April 26th, 1630 GMT

mapfi · April 21, 2003, 11:47

My motivation is the following:

Judges are usually people wanting to be involved in the DG. Since we are having problems getting our executive positions filled I'm proposing to allow judges to also hold such a position.
Of course there's a problem in conflicts of interest. However, I think explicetely denying the President position and replacing the judge who is a party in a case with the president handles such instances well.
Furthermore, the amendment is actually an improvement over the current con in that matter, because judges can't be delegates of the President and the Senior Judge not of any minister. Until now, this was rather unclear and has been practiced otherwise also by me. From my experience as Senior Judge it was really a conflict of interest and therefore should be banned.

J Bytheway · April 21, 2003, 12:38

Though I would like this clarification to the delegation situation I would not like to allow positions to be shared in this way. If next terms nominations are as sparse as this terms then I may change my mind.

Also, I don't like the wording of the first replacement paragraph - youimply that being a delegate is a governmental position, while I think the rest of the con is written assuming that that is not the case.

Martin Gühmann · April 21, 2003, 12:45

I am still not convinced that we should allow judges to hold positions in the government. I still see a conflict of interests. Unfortunatly I did not follow the amendment discussion. So as long as I don't see anymore arguments for the change then to have two more people available for governmental positions I must say no. But it is a good idea to forbite it expressly that Judges can't be delegates of positions they can't be elected for.

For your second change proposal I must also say no if I would say Yes for the first change, for me the court is not another branch of the government. The court is independent from the government, in the case of doubt is has to rhule over the government if the government violates the constition on purpose or by accident and a citizien files a case.

Finally it doesn't matter if I vote Yes or No the poll is inofficial, to turn it into an amendment poll you have to ask Ming or any other mod with this power to change the word Amendment in the subject line and in the title of this thread to AMENDMENT written in capital letters.

(Maybe Ming is already PMed while I am writing this.)

Well I wait a little bit before I vote to give anybody here.

-Martin

mapfi · April 21, 2003, 12:47

Quote:

Originally posted by J Bytheway
you imply that being a delegate is a governmental position, while I think the rest of the con is written assuming that that is not the case.

There is no other part of the con where this is actually having an effect, so it can't be that the con is written assuming that it isn't the case.
I do think that delegate is a governmental position though. If they don't get orders from the ministers they do have all his powers. However, this is not the issue here.

mapfi · April 21, 2003, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
I still see a conflict of interests.

I didn't pretend there wasn't one but I think it's succefully dealt with.

Quote:

to have two more people available for governmental positions

That's excatly why - two more willing to take a minister position can make the difference between a running gov or a dead game.

Quote:

Finally it doesn't matter if I vote Yes or No the poll is inofficial, to turn it into an amendment poll you have to ask Ming or any other mod with this power to change the word Amendment in the subject line and in the title of this thread to AMENDMENT written in capital letters.

Sure! File a case...

btw, for those who think I proposed this amendment because I would want to take advanatge of it - I probably would if I could but at the next election I'll be senior judge and after that I'll probably just go for Pres again... :-)

Zaphod Beeblebrox · April 24, 2003, 04:00

i like the parts of this amendment which forbid judges to wield power as a delegate. those parts should be enacted (in another amendment). the rest i don't like at all. don't mix up jurisdiction and executive power!

oh, and btw. what would happen if there is a legal dispute between the senior judge and the president?

Gilgamensch · April 24, 2003, 05:50

Quote:

don't mix up jurisdiction and executive power!

2nd that!!!!!!!!!!!

And already just because of this: No

Martin Gühmann · April 24, 2003, 13:50

Quote:

Originally posted by mapfi
Sure! File a case...

It is very difficuilt to ask Ming to fix it, isn't it. So case filed...

-Martin

mapfi · April 24, 2003, 16:28

It isn't very difficult to understand that this poll is AMENDMENT - like I would bother Ming or Locutus with something like this! But you've got every right to file a case. And even though I'm a party in this case I'll be able to vote on it in the court, hehe.

Well, this amendment would solve that conflict of interest...

Tamerlin · April 24, 2003, 17:24

I am sorry Mapfi but my opinion on this subject has not changed since the last thread, Judges, and especially the senior Judge, should not be allowed to hold an executive position in the government.

Devil of Truth · April 25, 2003, 03:44

I think the big picture here, is the "greater good".

I obstinately believe that the judiciary and the executive must be two separate entities to avoid conflict of interest. This would avoid the little tyrant in all/most

of us from running amok and spoiling it for everybody.

On the other hand, we have to adapt to circumstance when inevitably the interest in Lumeria starts to wane. It would be pointless having a nicely separated judiciary and executive, if we have no executive branch! Obviously, this would bring the game to a standstill faster than Fez at a Ming banning party.

IMHO, the greater good would be to allow a limited crossover between the two branches (as proposed).

At the very least, we’ll still be playing. At the very worst, somebody would have to lead a coup d’état to oust an autocrat. (Would that be a first for Apolyton?)

Immortal Wombat · April 25, 2003, 06:50

That'd be really funny.

Martin Gühmann · April 25, 2003, 12:45

Quote:

Originally posted by mapfi
It isn't very difficult to understand that this poll is AMENDMENT - like I would bother Ming or Locutus with something like this!

It is not the problem to understand that this Amendment is an AMENDMENT, the problem is we did a constitution, we voted about the constitution and it was accepted. So we set rhules and we have now to follow them. If we don't keep them the whole constitution is getting ridiculous. If you don't like our self given rhules do an AMENDMENT.

Quote:

Originally posted by mapfi
But you've got every right to file a case. And even though I'm a party in this case I'll be able to vote on it in the court, hehe.

Well, this amendment would solve that conflict of interest...

And we need another AMENDMENT.

And something more about the actual topic of this thread, as you already mentioned you wouldn't benefit from the new rhule, only two other people are left, H Tower doesn't have the game, and therefore he don't run for any governmental office. And Frozzy is President of the CTP1 DG and he should do there a little bit more, then here as President. So it is not very likely that we see here two more people for the other jobs.

-Martin

mapfi · April 25, 2003, 13:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
And something more about the actual topic of this thread, as you already mentioned you wouldn't benefit from the new rhule, only two other people are left, H Tower doesn't have the game, and therefore he don't run for any governmental office. And Frozzy is President of the CTP1 DG and he should do there a little bit more, then here as President. So it is not very likely that we see here two more people for the other jobs.
-Martin

And that's the reason to vote no?!!!! And why do you guess doesn't anyone else run for judge positions anymore - because it takes you out of the game...

Martin Gühmann · April 26, 2003, 12:02

Quote:

Originally posted by mapfi
And that's the reason to vote no?!!!!

It is a reason but not the (main) reason to vote no. The main reason is still mixing up the judicative and the executive. A judge could become a party in a case much easier than now. So you have to think about what happens if a judge become a party in a case, if you can fix this problem, then I can accept an AMENDMENT.

-Martin

mapfi · April 26, 2003, 14:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
So you have to think about what happens if a judge become a party in a case, if you can fix this problem, then I can accept an AMENDMENT.

-Martin

Have you even read the full post of my proposal?...

Are there people who haven't voted yet? If so what would you have voted? I'm just wondering because Poly was down for 2 days during the voting period...

Frozzy · April 26, 2003, 17:30

I would have voted yes, but I missed the poll

Tamerlin · April 27, 2003, 06:38

Quote:

Originally posted by mapfi
Are there people who haven't voted yet?

More or less 40...

Quote:

I'm just wondering because Poly was down for 2 days during the voting period...

There are only two solutions, either the poll is cancelled either its duration is extended for two more days...

Martin Gühmann · April 27, 2003, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by mapfi
Have you even read the full post of my proposal?...

Obviously you are right, that makes it easier, but another question can you imagine case with two executive officials involed in it?

Well I can, in that case a (willing at least an active) citizien without any position would be better. (S)he would be a juror. With this solution I would feel more confortible.

Well I still don't like the formulation "of the same branch of government" as it gives me the suggestion that the court and the government are not independent, but that is a minor issure, the constitiution is already full of it and it looks like that you can also translate "government" with "Staat" or something similar. So that shouldn't be a problem.

-Martin