Apolytonian Court: Everything Else

[LordImpact]

Since the trial would stem from a violation of the constitution, the accusor would not really need representation. However, if the accusor, or the accused would like someone to represent them, they should be able to choose someone on their own. I dont think we need to have presuctor or defender positions. As for appealing. All rulings by the court should be final. Since the judges are simply enforcng the constitution, a change in the constitution would be the only thing that would force the reopening of a case, but by the time that happens, the case would probably be long over, and irrelivant. The judicialbranch only need answer to the constitution and the people. It should be seperate from the executive branch and the ministers. I say we keep the court as simple as possible. If we need to expand certain parts of the judicial sytem, we can do that when there is need to.

--Impact

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Captain
At no time is there "game stoppage". Judges in real life have no power to stop time or go back and replay history. What is done is done. Remember that the justice system cannot truly correct wrongs, they can only punish wrongs. They can provide compensation as well, but not restore things to their original condition.

---
Lastly, I want to strongly push for judges to have to write out the reasons for their rulings, including any dissenting judges, within 24 hours. If this is not done, the ruling will be deemed invalid.

If the ruling is unanimous, there needs to be only one (1) written report.

If the ruling is split, there must be a Majority report and a Dissenting report. Total two (2) reports.

This clause will prevent capricious and flippant decision making, should we be unfortunate enough to have elected/appointed some bad judges.

One thing we still haven't discussed:
What will be the mechanism for appeal?

Agree in general with most of what you say. However...

re injunctive relief. I believe this is important to grant. President Atilla is about to order a war by attacking a neutral unit. That act may be unconstitutional. An injunction against that act must be possible to preserve the intent and the spirit of the constitution and the democracy. A single judge must be able to issue it, but he or she better have darn good reasons for doing so.

At the same time, the president must be able to proceed with the game, while of course avoiding the proscribed act. The power of the president and the ministers to proceed with the game while staying within the boundaries of the injunction must be absolute and can never be a matter for the court to decide upon. Executive privilege if you wish.

The mechanism for hearings re impeachment should not be denied. It should be different from 'normal' complaints that could be denied a hearing. Although, if complaints are made in threads, there is no reason to deny any hearing. I believe the 'evidence' should be made in a thread for a minimum of 24 hours, after which time the court may decide if there is enough for it to impose censure in such cases. or to proceed to deliberations or reject the claim in the case of more mundane issues.

Censure would be a prelude to a poll, immediately held. The censured judge/minister would not act pending the outcome of the initial hearing, and then the impeachment poll if that was decided on.

Except... anyone can start an impeachment poll. Maybe only judicial censure results in suspension pending the outcome of the poll. And as far as that goes, a judge's/minister's foes need merely PM the court in order to prevent that judge or minister from acting in a pressing matter. Hence, any suspension should only be once judicial censure has been made.

I agree about reasons for rulings, but disagree in the case of dissenting opinions. All the dissenting judge need do is decline to write an opinion and the ruling would be invalidated. Dissenting opinions should be optional.

Appeal? There should be only one. 67% vote of the people in a properly constituted poll. The poll may be improperly started or constructed, in which case the court may post a repoll that would over ride the first. If they do not prior to the end of 4 or 5 days (the minimum for an official poll) then the original poll stands. If they do, the original poll is invalidated immediately.

[notyoueither]

Hmmm. One thought. If presidents nominate judges, should they be involved in renominating? Or should the discretion on resubmitting him or herself to the people for confirmation be solely at the discretion of the judge?

If the president needs to renominate, that is a powerful deterent against a judge ever ruling to the presidents disadvantage, even in dissent of a majority.

Nope, the politicians should definitely never be involved in renomination. That's my opinion.

[LordImpact]

I agree on the renomination issue.

[Aggie]

re injunctive relief. I believe this is important to grant. President Atilla is about to order a war by attacking a neutral unit. That act may be unconstitutional. An injunction against that act must be possible to preserve the intent and the spirit of the constitution and the democracy. A single judge must be able to issue it, but he or she better have darn good reasons for doing so.

My thought exactly and that was why i mentioned it in another thread. This is a better place to mention it. Good point nye on the renomination, i didn't think of that. Maybe they could be automatically renominated and submitted for approval, though personally I don't think anybody would want the job for longer than one term. Then again it is a fairly relaxed and uneventful job, at least hopefully it will be.
Aggie

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by Sheik
I think judges should have the power to throw out impeachment cases. This court idea is great. A judicial is just what this game needs.

That' right...
But how do we implement such things? Here's some thoughts...

In many European countries:
If the representatives (senate/parliament) do not want the particular govt. they can throw them all out of office by votation of 51% yes. This is a democratic form called "parliamentarism". (Philosophied upon by Voltaire)

I suggest we do not use this kind of rule here yet, since it would complicate things utterly...



In the USA:
However, taken in account he violates the law, he could also be impeached. (according to US law) This action is normally initiated and organised by a court of judges. And voted upon by the representatives. (which can be all of those participating here)
Anyway, the popularity of this person can have an unforeseen effect?

I suggest we put this rule to a const. votation very soon...

[MrWhereItsAt]

As ever, Captain speaks a helluva lot of common sense, and well written as well, so I suggest all look at his posts here. I support basically all that he says.

I do not think we need elections for judges however, merely a Presidential/Ministerial appointment and confirmation is fine. What, we don't trust the Prez and Ministers to make such a judgement? If not I seriously suggest you (try to) impeach these treacherous Cabinet members. We elected them, didn't we? If we don't trust them to have our best interests at heart, and to be capable, we should blame ourselves.

Oh, and Timeline - such matters we don't NEED to dream of in the Civ2 game. No-one is going against the peoples' will there, so there isn't any need for such weighty matters. Someone has a problem, they tell me, and I act on it, period. No need for such long-winded "just-in-cases".

EDIT: Looking at the poll results to date I need to say this.

The Judicial system should NOT be able to impeach nor rule beyond the bounds of the Constitution. Why should it? These are powers beyond the will of the people, and are thus contrary to the whole idea of a Democratic game. The judiciary needs to rule on whether something is within the bounds of the Constitution, and whether an impeachment case needs to be heard by the people. The Judges should have as little power as possible, 'cos we ALL decide. NO Autocracies, please. That might make the office of Judge an even more political position than it seems to be becoming. Let's keep this a Democratic game, shall we?

[Sheik]

Why does this poll have the option:
There shouldn't be a court.

Didn't the court already pass and therefore those votes don't matter?

Or is that option like an abstain vote?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Sheik
Why does this poll have the option:
There shouldn't be a court.

Didn't the court already pass and therefore those votes don't matter?

Or is that option like an abstain vote?

It's just a fun option. This is an unofficial info-gathering poll anyways, so it doesn't matter.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Vlad Antlerkov
Impeachment vs. no impeachment: Should be allowed, but only for ministers (Presidential impeachment would be handled differently) and only in the event of major violations of the [PC] Constitution/CoL [/PC] or major disruption of the game (NEVER on political grounds).

I think that we are confused on the idea of impeachment,

impeachment = indictment

I have pointed this out previously.

The court should not indict a minister or president, that should be done by the people, in a properly voted on poll which should pass by 2/3's vote.

The court then should hear arguments and decide of the offending minister or president is to be removed from office. The court should make the decision on removal because this court should be set up as an independent entity, see my prior posts on this topic, and thus not swayed by politics and the popular will.

I think the post needs to be corrected or at least explained in the opening thread to show that the court will decide about removal from office, but that the indictment (the impeachment) is to be based on a poll of the citizenry.

[jdjdjd]

Oh, and the president and the minister or even judge, impeachment process should be the same.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
I think that we are confused on the idea of impeachment,

impeachment = indictment

I have pointed this out previously.

I think we're all only using the term for the reason of simplicity, since it's a word that most people will recognize with "removing an official from office", even if that's not the literal definition of the word.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Trip

I think we're all only using the term for the reason of simplicity, since it's a word that most people will recognize with "removing an official from office", even if that's not the literal definition of the word.

OK, so long as I'm on the same page as the rest of you, and that those outside the countries that use impeachment are not misinformed.

For this thread, impeachment is used to mean, removing an official from office.

Thank Mr. President, and good lukc in your campaign.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
For this thread, impeachment is used to mean, removing an official from office.

That is correct.

Thank Mr. President, and good lukc in your campaign.

No problem, and thanks! Vote for me!

[Purple]

Originally posted by jdjdjd

For this thread, impeachment is used to mean, removing an official from office.

Trip, would you add this statement prominently to the first post in this thread?

Thanks jd3 for finally pointing out the correct meaning of impeachment.

I recommend rewording the ammendment to reflect proper use, or else you have to provide the definition in the ammendment, which is a little messy. Otherwise, the courts will have to interpret it.

This is absolutely crucial in any legal document, but especially in a constitution.

Off my soapbox now.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Options 3 and 4. Hmmm. At least censure leading to a poll on impeachment (51% to impeach after censure?). Remove on their own? I don't know about that. I think we need to discuss it. No vote.

I agree, somehow it needs to be mixed in with the populace vote on it, such as populace votes to impeach, and then court decides if removal from office is warranted. Court shouldn't act, until case presented to them

Originally posted by notyoueither

Options 5 and 6. Yes, the court should go by both the constitution and by what has gone before (common law). Otherwise you give them little room to be sensical and in tune with the needs of the nation. For instance, the current history guys debate (of having 2 historians elected together) would be an automatic 'buzzz' sorry can't do that, because one person for one office is implicit in the constitution (I think). All it would take is one mischievous PM from a citizen.

If you allow them some commonsense and to listen to consensus (present and past) then they can make better decisions for more situations. Nobody can possibly dream up all the possible scenarios that may arise. Allow the court some latitude to do a good job.

Yes they do need to base there decisions on the constitution and precendent. Again, though you do mention it, I would like to...that there decisions should be re: interpretation of the constitution where it is ambiguous and a dispute arises or a request is made by someone for clarification. Then they need to consider all that NYE mentions above.

I also think they have the right to throw out a dispute and not hear it if they feel there is no merit to the complaint.

[Spiffor]

Captain :
I rarley disagree with you, but it happens on this topic. You're basically describing procedures of a true justice system, in an administrative logic. This system is probably great for RL, where judges are overloaded with work, but it's bad for the DemoGame, where the judges have almost nothing to do.
If we were to follow very precise procedure about how the case is brought, the judges would have much more work setting up things than actually listening and judging.
Such a method is needed in real life, because such loads of works need to be organized (and this method is a full time job for plenty of aides). But in the DemoGame, we don't need that much organization.

For example, to bring a case, a simple PM to a judge will be enough. The judge will be more than happy to do some job
About the prosecutor : someone who feels unable do make a solid accusation can ask help of anybody, no need to formally appoint someone to do this (most people will make their accusation themselves).
Again, prosecutors and lawyers are needed in the real world, because code of laws can fill several bookcases. In Apolytonia, the code of laws is ca. 2 typed pages.

(sorry if I missed some points, I couldn't read all the thread, because I have much less internet time than usual at this time)

My vote options :
- elected. I know this method is flawed, but appointment is worse (good ol' "democracy is the worse form of government, except all others"). NYE had a good idea, asking the agreement of everybody (President, Ministers and Citizens), but I always feel uncomfortable when the voice of one is as important as the voice of 12, which is as important as the voice of 200. Elected is the only way to make everybody equal in this matter. Don't forget we're building a great democracy, we're not imitating the flawed ones of the world, which are flawed because they're too big.

- shouldn't be able to impeach. As long as we don't precisely know what it's about, I'll cautious about it. IMO, impeachment should be brought by anybody (as already voted by the citizens), and the decision should belong to the citizens.
But, what the court can do, is to "sue" the person getting impeached. It would be a place (a chatroom) where some people attack the impeached one, and he replies. The role of the court would only be to say who talks. Such a "trial" would be useless, as it's unlikely to change the results of impeachment votes drastically, but it would be fun.
The court should not have any decision power in matters of impeachment. This important decision belongs entirely to the people, and giving some decision power to the court would take away this much power to the people. As I said, we're a Democracy, and I want us to come the closest to utopia... We're few enough not to take away this kind of power from the people.

- shouldn't be able to make decision outside the borders of constitution.
Interpeting the constitution is a power great enough. The court should have some material to work upon. If you let them work outside the boundaries of constitution, you let them create laws, you're giving the judicial power some legislative power.
Again (this must be my mantra ) this exists IRL because the legislative system is extremely slow. But in Apolytonia, making a law takes up to 2 weeks, for the very long procedures, from the very beginning of the project to the final vote. We can easily put a judgment on hold until the people decide a law about the matter.

That's all. I support a judicial system, but I'd like to see it limited. Having an extremely complete judicial system, similmar to RL would be absurd in our Democracy (esp. since we can't punish people). I'm in favor of a judicial system whose charge is to see if polls and executive decisions are legitimate or not, nothing less, nothing more.

[disorganizer]

Well, we can punish people. Expell from office, deny further nomination, exile to a far-out city, eating bananas till the end of your life.

[ThePlagueRat]

Ohmygawd, this looks awful! (watching the coloured bars)
Almost as awful as the antique "egypt poll" ...

Ok, sorry... I'm opposed, but that's just democracy in a nutshell!

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Spiffor
My vote options :
- elected. I know this method is flawed, but appointment is worse (good ol' "democracy is the worse form of government, except all others"). NYE had a good idea, asking the agreement of everybody (President, Ministers and Citizens), but I always feel uncomfortable when the voice of one is as important as the voice of 12, which is as important as the voice of 200. Elected is the only way to make everybody equal in this matter. Don't forget we're building a great democracy, we're not imitating the flawed ones of the world, which are flawed because they're too big.

Electing judges will be worse than electing ministers. They will be popularity contests even more so than anything else we could come up with. However, OTOH, if they're appointed and approved by a specific body, then it's less likely that will occur.

- shouldn't be able to impeach. As long as we don't precisely know what it's about, I'll cautious about it. IMO, impeachment should be brought by anybody (as already voted by the citizens), and the decision should belong to the citizens.
But, what the court can do, is to "sue" the person getting impeached. It would be a place (a chatroom) where some people attack the impeached one, and he replies. The role of the court would only be to say who talks. Such a "trial" would be useless, as it's unlikely to change the results of impeachment votes drastically, but it would be fun.
The court should not have any decision power in matters of impeachment. This important decision belongs entirely to the people, and giving some decision power to the court would take away this much power to the people. As I said, we're a Democracy, and I want us to come the closest to utopia... We're few enough not to take away this kind of power from the people.

Half the people seem to want it, and half don't. Therefore, I'm going to come up with a system that will combine both (and eliminate the old meathod) for the amendment, and see if people like it.

- shouldn't be able to make decision outside the borders of constitution.
Interpeting the constitution is a power great enough. The court should have some material to work upon. If you let them work outside the boundaries of constitution, you let them create laws, you're giving the judicial power some legislative power.
Again (this must be my mantra ) this exists IRL because the legislative system is extremely slow. But in Apolytonia, making a law takes up to 2 weeks, for the very long procedures, from the very beginning of the project to the final vote. We can easily put a judgment on hold until the people decide a law about the matter.

Our Constitution deals with very few things. Right now, all it deals with are polls, and minister positions. The court would never have any cases. If the people disagree with their decision, they can pass a law the next day and make it legal again, and then the court couldn't do anything about it.

That's all. I support a judicial system, but I'd like to see it limited. Having an extremely complete judicial system, similmar to RL would be absurd in our Democracy (esp. since we can't punish people). I'm in favor of a judicial system whose charge is to see if polls and executive decisions are legitimate or not, nothing less, nothing more.

We can't make it so limited that it's powerless in our game. Issues concerning polls and decisions have come up, what, once or twice in nearly two months? The point of the court would be for it to help make the game go more smoothly. This involves all areas, not just what is defined in the Constitution.... since very little is.

[Spiffor]

We can't make it so limited that it's powerless in our game. Issues concerning polls and decisions have come up, what, once or twice in nearly two months? The point of the court would be for it to help make the game go more smoothly. This involves all areas, not just what is defined in the Constitution.... since very little is.

Well, except legitimacy of polls and minister decisions, what should the court do, to make the game smoother ? In fact, except spam and excessive threads, (about which we can't do anything), what makes the game rough ?

Let's face it : a court will be useful only for polls and minister decisions. In our DemoGame, you can't be a problem to the others, except by spamming or not obeying the constitution.
All the things a primitive justice had to deal with doesn't exist by us : violence, theft, sexual immorality etc.
Justice is intended to let the law be respected. That's its work. Its work is not to invent law, that's the role of the senate (eg. all of us).

If we allow the court to go outside the boundaries of the constitution, we'll have tremendous problems to give it precise competences, to tell what it can and can't do.
For example, imagine I go to the court and say "UberKrux sent me a virus in an email !" (don't worry, he didn't ). Who will decide if the court has right to judge this matter, and if it judges, what should it decide ?

Please give me ONE valid example of a case which could be brought to the court which doesn't concern constitution / polls / minister decisions. I'm curious if you can think of one, because I can't.

[Spiffor]

To sum up my views :
Even if we give the court big powers, it won't have anything to do except judging validity of polls and ministers' decisions.
Should an unexpected problem arise, I don't see why a small group of people who are unprepared to this perticular matter should decide what to do, instead of the people.

Like I said elsewhere, the more power we take from the people, the less "normal people" will be interested in the game, and we'll end up being 25 to play.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Polls take time, and there's the question of how many must vote for something to be legit. If we have a recognised apolitical authority, there is no such delay, nor is there any question of legitimacy.

In many cases it may be possible to run things by poll, but sometimes, with the need to keep things going, it may be necessary to make a snap decision.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Timeline
GOD, we really HAVE made it farther than the civ2 game . This is stuff they only dreamed of .

LOL, we did dream of it, but decided against it!

I agree with timeline on this issue. They should be elected by the people! No impeachment powers!

[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.

[Jon Shafer]

As I stated in the 'other' more official thread, I want a summary of ideas presented, so I can start compiling the ideas into a more cohesive amendment. So far, things here are either: 1 way or the other, so that'll be what's in the amendment, or 2: tied or close to it, so a mix will be implimented.