Judicial System

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by LordImpact
I am going to summarize my views on the court as simply as possible, because this is just getting plain chaotic. I've used the US Constitution as a reference point for terminology and basic set-up plus the discussions we've had so far. A note: I am using the word Impeachment under its true meaning, which is a TRIAL held against an elected official who had broken the law. Impeachment is NOT REMOVAL FROM OFFICE as I am using it.

cool....impeachment = indictment....yeah!

Originally posted by LordImpact
1. The judicial power of the nation of Apolytonia is to be vested in the High Court of Apolytonia. The 5 judges of this court shall hold their office during good behavior (that means that the judges are acting responsibly as both citizens and judges). Judges are to be appointed by the President, and sworn in pending approval from Ministers (2/3 majority) and a simple majority vote from the people (50% + 1).
[EDIT] Judges will hold their position as long as they are willing and able [/EDIT]

Though I think the approval process may be time consuming, I agree it is a good way to keep all sides of the argument happy and, also, since you give the judges, in effect life-tenure(which I also agree with), then this is a good way to limit the impact of politics.

Originally posted by LordImpact
2. Judicial power is restricted to enforcement of the Constitution of the Nation of Apolytonia including any and all Amendments and the Laws of Apolytonia (this includes polling, the powers of elected officials, and ANYTHING else written in the constitution or in written law). All Cases, with the exception of polls, must be brought before the court.

Just to clarify, I think you are saying, not they go out and make sure everyone is following the constitution, but when they are asked to decide a dispute they have the power to make that decision based on the constitution.

I think with regards to polling, someone needs to bring a discrepancy to the court's attention, not the court monitor all polls, but I can be flexible, assuming you refer to polls that actually impact the game, not feeler polls posted by minister's or anyone else.

Originally posted by LordImpact
3. The justices reserve the right to refuse to try a case. Pending trial, ALL justices will convein to hear arguements from prosection and defense. After both sides present their cases, the judges will decide on weather the case has merit.

Perhaps, both sides need to submit briefs and then if the justices require it, a hearing can be held to question both sides.

Originally posted by LordImpact
4. In the event of a trail, 3 judges, no more, will preside. One judge is to be declared the Lead Justice. The trial, which will be held in a chat environment, will be moderated by the Lead Justice, who speaks for the court. The Lead Justice is the only agent of the court allowed to speak in the public room. all 3 justices will be present in a seperate closed room where they can discuss the trial in peace. A chat log will be kept from start of trail to finish and posted publicly upon the trials completion. The chat log of the Judges room will remain private to the court and elected officials, but can be requeted by said officials at any time for private viewing. Judiciary logs are also admissable in trial where use is warranted. When a trial is finished, the judges will decide on the means of passing judgement, weather it be by jury or otherwise. Justices are required to submit a summary of their decision

With this one, I refer to your number 11., this I think, should also be hashed out by the court.

Originally posted by LordImpact
5. Polls are subject to review by the 3 memebrs of the court and a decision on officiality and whether they adhear to the laws of the constitution will be decided amongst the judges.

I agree here, but I think someone has to bring it to the court for them to decide it, not they go out to review all polls. But again, something that can be lived with.

Originally posted by LordImpact
6. In the event of an Impeachment, a trial will be held after the case is reviewed. (see section 4 for trial standards). After the trial is completed, a thread and poll will be set up by the Lead Justice on the case in which the citizenry of Apolytonia votes on weather the Accused is guilty or not guilty. If the Accused is found Guilty by 2/3 majority, he is to be removed from office immediately including any and all aides he has appointed. If he is found Not Guilty, all charges against him are to be dropped, and he cannot be tried for the same crime again.

The details of what leads to the court hearing the impeachment still needs to be hashed out, but this seems a reasonable remed should impeachment be decided. One question though, would the court be able to throw out a case if it lacks merit, I think it should.

Originally posted by LordImpact
7. Justices may be removed from their seat via Impeachment trial following the rules stated above.

Originally posted by LordImpact
8. Should it be discovered that a Minister or other elected official has been attempting to sway a justices decisions, they will be impeached as well as the jusice should it be proven necessary. (if the justice complies to the ministers demands)

Originally posted by LordImpact
9. Should it be discovered that 3 or more of the seated justices are acting in a manner unbefitting a member of their office or beyond their power, the entire court is to be dissolved after a 2/3 majority vote by the citizens of Apolytonia and a new court is to be selected.

I'm not sure I agree with this one, I think the court can't be dissolved. Invidual members could be subject to impeachment, so this would seem not necessary.

Originally posted by LordImpact
10. Rulings made by the justices without a jury or poll, are eligable for appeal. In the event of an appeal, the two justices, who did not sit on the case, will hear arguments and decide weather or not the findings of the court are in error. For a ruling to be in error, both justices must unanimously agree.

I have to think about this more, but it seems OK. Or perhaps all five get to review.

Originally posted by LordImpact
11. The organizational structure of this court will be decided on by the Justices of this court alone.

The High Court of Apolyton is an istrument of the governemnt which enforces and interprits the Constitution and the law of the land. The court is not above the law.

Good work.

I don't agree on every issue, but certainly its workable.

The only issue that would need to be discussed, is whether theyy can be in party, and subscribe to, post on, start up threads having to do with political matters, i.e., polls, campaigns, elections, amendments....I think they need to remain out of these to stay independent and also to not become too influentail.

[MrWhereItsAt]

That's pretty good, LordImpact. A little more thorough than other ideas (esp. mine), and covers some things I didn't think of.

I bet, however that someone will find some examples not covered by your excellent post - unless something rather important or likely is mentioned (remember we elect our officials because we trust them - if not I seriously suggest we look at our own decision-making ability), let us rely on something like this, without more additions to it.

It is long enough, so let's keep it that way!

But, in short,

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by LordImpact
8. Should it be discovered that a Minister or other elected official has been attempting to sway a justices decisions, they will be impeached as well as the jusice should it be proven necessary. (if the justice complies to the ministers demands)

I assume you mean that an impeachment trial and poll will be held, not that they will be auto-impeached by the court. If so
Also, I think all correspondence related to the alleged threatening/bribing should be released to the public.

Your points all look good to me.

[LordImpact]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
The only issue that would need to be discussed, is whether theyy can be in party, and subscribe to, post on, start up threads having to do with political matters, i.e., polls, campaigns, elections, amendments....I think they need to remain out of these to stay independent and also to not become too influentail.

I forgot to add that part. It should be under Section 1 and read: Justices are citizens of the nation of Apolytonia and are thus entitled to the same rights and privilages every Apolytonian has. These right are not to be infringed upon.

Remeber, I added the part about justices acting resposibly as citizens and judges. Its mentioned as good behavior. This would mean that justices cannot attempt to sway the opinions of the citizens. Since the justices are going to be watched closely as it is, any kind of restrictions would be unnecessary. Besides, if a justice is found to be doing such a think, it can brought to the attention of the court and impeachment proceedings would be started. Obviously, the Justice accused would not be able to sit in on the case as a judge or decide weather the case has merit.

Originally posted by Kloreep
I assume you mean that an impeachment trial and poll will be held, not that they will be auto-impeached by the court. If so
Also, I think all correspondence related to the alleged threatening/bribing should be released to the public.

Yes, Impeachment means trial.
The correspondace would be evidence and thus brought forth in the trial. Since the chat log is posted in the poll thread, it would be viewed by the public.

I thank everyone for the general approval, and I know it's not perfect. But it's at least a step closer to an agreement on the amendment.

--Impact

[Sheik]

Originally posted by LordImpact

I forgot to add that part. It should be under Section 1 and read: Justices are citizens of the nation of Apolytonia and are thus entitled to the same rights and privilages every Apolytonian has. These right are not to be infringed upon.

Remeber, I added the part about justices acting resposibly as citizens and judges. Its mentioned as good behavior. This would mean that justices cannot attempt to sway the opinions of the citizens. Since the justices are going to be watched closely as it is, any kind of restrictions would be unnecessary. Besides, if a justice is found to be doing such a think, it can brought to the attention of the court and impeachment proceedings would be started. Obviously, the Justice accused would not be able to sit in on the case as a judge or decide weather the case has merit.

I think we have the regulations worked out now. I agree with the above if I am correct in assuming you also think that judges should be allowed to be in political parties.

I thank everyone for the general approval, and I know it's not perfect. But it's at least a step closer to an agreement on the amendment.

We are getting there. If someone wrote up a final version we could probably get an official vote on this soon.

[LordImpact]

Originally posted by Sheik
I think we have the regulations worked out now. I agree with the above if I am correct in assuming you also think that judges should be allowed to be in political parties.

If the average citizen can be in a party then a judge should be able to be in one too. As long as he's acting responsibly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

--Impact

[Sheik]

Originally posted by LordImpact

If the average citizen can be in a party then a judge should be able to be in one too. As long as he's acting responsibly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I say we vote!

[notyoueither]

The only major problem with it is time...

You have people from Europe, North America and (presumably) Asia. When will all 5 of them be available to sit in a hearing in chat? Some people work, many work places block all chat (except the unreliable kind similar to Apolyton's).

Then there is life. How often will it happen that 1 of the 5 is simply not available at all for a period of a week or 2? Even the most dedicated of Polytoners (such as Gramphos) have been cut off from us for extended periods of time (not to mention MarkG who happens to own the place).

The only sticking point I see is that flexibility must be built in to the thing. That is why I have constantly mentioned quorums. Even parliaments use quorums, because sometimes... life intrudes, even when it is your career IRL.

The worst thing that could happen is that we enact this thing in a straight jacket that cannot be maintained. The court is unable to function as prescribed in the article, the game stalls due to the log jam, and the people sweep the whole thing away in a single act of 67% majority in the name of expedience. They will not welcome a second attempt.

[LordImpact]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The only major problem with it is time...

You have people from Europe, North America and (presumably) Asia. When will all 5 of them be available to sit in a hearing in chat? Some people work, many work places block all chat (except the unreliable kind similar to Apolyton's).

Then there is life. How often will it happen that 1 of the 5 is simply not available at all for a period of a week or 2? Even the most dedicated of Polytoners (such as Gramphos) have been cut off from us for extended periods of time (not to mention MarkG who happens to own the place).

First of all, only 3 members sit in on a trial at a time. The reason we chose 5 justices was just for this exact situation. Trials will be scheduled at a time when all justices can be present. Also, only Apolytonians who are both objective and willing to dedicate the time required for this position should apply.

The only sticking point I see is that flexibility must be built in to the thing. That is why I have constantly mentioned quorums. Even parliaments use quorums, because sometimes... life intrudes, even when it is your career IRL.

The worst thing that could happen is that we enact this thing in a straight jacket that cannot be maintained. The court is unable to function as prescribed in the article, the game stalls due to the log jam, and the people sweep the whole thing away in a single act of 67% majority in the name of expedience. They will not welcome a second attempt.

Quite true. While my proposed version of the amendment is a bit more wordy, it is just about as flexible as Trips version. I purposely left a vew things vague so the court can grow with the government and so further amendments will be unnecessary provided there isn't a large change to how the court is run. The final section (section 11) allows the court to change its basic operating procedure. Hopefully this is all the flexibility it will need.

This proposal is not my final stance on the issue. I welcome any other ideas and they will be added to the body of the ammendment provided most of us agree on it.

--Impact

[notyoueither]

3. The justices reserve the right to refuse to try a case. Pending trial, ALL justices will convene to hear arguments from prosecution and defense. After both sides present their cases, the judges will decide on weather the case has merit.

Am I misinterpreting the ALL bit?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by LordImpact
First of all, only 3 members sit in on a trial at a time. The reason we chose 5 justices was just for this exact situation. Trials will be scheduled at a time when all justices can be present. Also, only Apolytonians who are both objective and willing to dedicate the time required for this position should apply.

Excuse me for being out of the loop, but when was this decided.

[notyoueither]

Aside from the fact that it can be difficult to predict personal crises and pressures of work ahead of time...

It might seem really easy right now to some, but what about in the fall when the school year starts? What about when the boss says 'get this done by this date or else'? What about when family... lets not go there. I hope you get the idea.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Aside from the fact that it can be difficult to predict personal crises and pressures of work ahead of time...

It might seem really easy right now to some, but what about in the fall when the school year starts? What about when the boss says 'get this done by this date or else'? What about when family... lets not go there. I hope you get the idea.

There's a certain level of dedication that needs to be considered here. Only those who believe they can organize themselves well enough to avoid all but the unforseeable need apply etc etc. And as far as school goes - hell, if I can do my Honours year PLUS finish another undergrad degree simultaneously whilst having an RL right now, then how much worse can it be for others when they start school later on?

As for families - yeah. Don't go there.

I should hope there're enough people here who don't have all-consuming responsibilities elsewhere all the time that we can have responsible judges.

[notyoueither]

Yes but... any clause that requires ALL of them to be present simply begs to be an issue breaker.

Life does come up.

[Sheik]

Excuse me for being out of the loop, but when was this decided.

When you were out of the loop.
It was suggested by LordImpact and so it has received praise from, I think everyone. The idea behind it is to allow for some judges to be absent.

any clause that requires ALL of them to be present simply begs to be an issue breaker.

Your right we can never all five on one issue. When a case is brought forth the judges can decide which three will take the case and then those three will follow the case until it is finished.

[LordImpact]

About the all justices part. That's just to decide is the case is triable and it can be done over e-mail/pm/whatever. What i suspect would happen is the accusor would send a PM to the Lead Justice (if there is one) and he would circulate it to the rest of them any way he can. The Justices would read it over and if 3 say the case is worth going to trail over then three justices will be chosen to try the case based on availability. I know it might be tough, but if it's absolutely necessary, we can add more justices...

[LordImpact]

It certainly wasn't my intent to push ANYONE out of the loop on this, especially Trip. I wouldn't say everyone supports it either. There are still a few things that need hammering out. Also, the proposal was definately not meant to be adopted as is. Like I said, It's just a proposal. Not everyone is in agreement, and only a few have responded to it directly so we have no idea what the attitude of the general population is towards it. All I had hoped is people would take a look at it, discuss the sections briefly and we would somehow be closer to a compromise on Trip's ammendment. This court is his baby more than anyone elses.

All in all, I probably should have posted this in the Ideas Compilation Thread rather than here. It would have atleast received more attention there.

[Thud]

I beleive that the court should have the power of indictment. They should be able to announce what minister should be impeached, and why, and put it to popular vote. That also makes for a clean compromise.

In order to do this, however, the court needs to be able to have information that would enable them to say "That minister is totally incompetent, and should be impeached!". That is why I think that along with the judicial branch amendment, there should be an increase in the Historian's responsiblilities. The minister's should be responsible to copy private inter-department mail (or maybe just the weekly report each minister submits as to what he did and what resulted of their advice) of what to the archives, in case it needs to be pulled out as evidence.

Also, any minister who feels that a fellow minister is not pulling his weight should be required to tell the Court, and submit proper records to the Historian or Court. The records being on file will also allow the public, come elections, to see which candidates deserve to be reelected.

In short, having a system where the court can decide that action needs to be taken, but that the action is then submitted to a majority vote, is the only way for the impeachment system to have any meaning.

[jdjdjd]

Obviously, this thing has been hashed around, and many good ideas have made there way in.

I suggest that once the polls close, that the amendment be compiled based on same with certain other matters that need hashing out, and we can,

A. hash them
B. Trip review the hashing and propose an amendment for vote
C. Trip appoint someone/panel to review the hashing and propose an amendment for vote
D. Leave the hashing to the new court (with exception of impeachment which probably needs a separate amendment to include the court in the original consititution, i.e. an court roles and/or ability to impeach a judge).

There is nothing wrong with the court making many of its own rules and set precedent on them. Maybe the its better to leave things flexible, this idea is a baby and needs room to grow.

I will post this same message in the related threads.

[ThePlagueRat]

I think Lord Impacts 11 clauses looks great. It summarizes up a lot of the discussed matters. What about polling for each one of them? (yes/no) Or maybe poll with one of Trip's alternatives as second option? (when the meaning differs)

I think it is imperative to put §1 to §11 to a votation somehow, after this discussion.

If Trip is to initiate this poll, then he should use Lord Impacts clauses for the amendment proposal in 1.post.

[Thud]

I also like Lord Impact's clauses very much, and they even include, in a way, my ridiculous rambling, except there is no mention of exactly why the judges would have reason to impeach and how they would obtain that reason (my expanded historian role). His post should certainly be included in any polling.