Amendment II: Apolytonian Court - Idea Compilation

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 12:41

Okay, I'm going to try to form up some sort of amendment that we may one day submit. Needless to say, many things have yet to be worked out, so I'm going to edit this constantly, but I'm going to try to establish a rough estimate of what it will end up looking like.

Quote:

This amendment hereby creates an official Apolytonian Court. The amendment will outline its creation, meathod of judicial appointment and powers.

The Court is entitled to rule upon and only upon cases brought in front of it. It can by no means pursue cases. The decisions it comes in agreement to are official and the same case can only be brought forth again with 75% of the justices agreeing to hear the appeal. Cases that involve Constitutional affairs as well as non-Constitutional affairs may be ruled upon by the court.

The Court is to have 5 members. These members are to be appointed by the President, and approved by 2/3 of the ministers. The court is to decide among itself a 'senior justice', who will produce a report upon each case, and preside over each trial that take place. A quorum of at least 3 justices must rule in every case for it to be official. In the case of a tie, the senior justice is to decide the result of the case. A report is to be written for both the majority and the dissenting sides of each case, explaining the reasoning that the justices came to their decision.

Justices may serve as many terms as they are chosen to. A justice may not be a member of any other position but his own in the court. Each term will be 2 months in length. A judge may be removed from his office by a 51% vote amongst the ministers and a 2/3 vote amongst the people. In turn, the court may impeach a minister with a 75% vote within the court, and a 51% amongst the people (as opposed to only a 2/3 vote amongst the people).

This is what I have so far. Go ahead and start giving me more ideas for other things to include in it ... In other words, this isn't a place for debate, or to voice that you dislike one of the things included. Go to one of the other discussion threads to debate on the issues presented in one of those threads... I'm sure this thread will get very long as it is, there's no need to make it even longer.

MrWhereItsAt · July 9, 2002, 12:47

Whoops.

This space for rent.

MrWhereItsAt · July 9, 2002, 12:47

Perhaps, to circumvent the idea of a "Superior Judge", we have decisions made where there are only an odd number of Judges eg 3 or 5 present. Where 4 make it, one misses out on the decision, and next time this occurs another misses out etc. No need to have a hierarchy within a group of equal Justices.

Otherwise the above is great.

LordImpact · July 9, 2002, 12:50

Appointed by the President, approval from 2/3 of the ministers, and a 50% + 1 vote by the people would be better...

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 12:52

Woops, someone hasn't figured out how to use the edit button.

I think it may just complicate things to have to 'rotate' justices (I could be wrong, I don't plan on being a judge any time soon

). Besides, they pick amongst themselves to who 'runs' things. Also, there needs to be someone to run it, report on it, etc. etc. etc. It would just simplify things to give all things to one justice in particular.

Aggie · July 9, 2002, 12:55

Trip this is a very good amendment and think it could pass as is.

. Though MWIA's idea is a good one too.
Aggie

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 12:56

Quote:

Originally posted by LordImpact
Appointed by the President, approval from 2/3 of the ministers, and a 50% + 1 vote by the people would be better...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=55189

LordImpact · July 9, 2002, 12:58

OK OK! I GET THE POINT!

But I like the chief justice idea. (in case you havent figured that out yet

) Like trip said, it would simplify things. I say we let the justices decide on their own structure. As long as an odd number is present, it should be alright.

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 15:13

I added something about judges not being able to hold any other positions.

Sheik · July 9, 2002, 15:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

The Court is entitled to rule upon and only upon cases brought in front of it. It can by no means pursue cases.

I think the court should be able to create cases. If any citizen can file a complaint I believe that the court should be able to declare something on their own. In other words the court should be able to bring cases. Maybe I am unclear on what you mean by persue cases.

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

Judge may be removed from his office by a 51% vote amongst the ministers and a 2/3 vote amongst the people. In turn, the court may impeach a minister with a 75% vote

I think that only the people should be able to remove a judge with 2/3 vote. This way if the court impeaches a kinster say from politcal party x and party x controls the administration party x can't just easily remove the judge. The people must be the only ones who can remove a judge. Either only the people or the combination of both the people and the minsters. Not sure if this is what you meant in the above quote or not.

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheik
I think the court should be able to create cases. If any citizen can file a complaint I believe that the court should be able to declare something on their own. In other words the court should be able to bring cases. Maybe I am unclear on what you mean by persue cases.

As others have said in other threads, if the court can go out and do whatever it wants, then that will give it too much power. What if 3 out of the 5 members of a court decide that "hey, we don't like this one law, let's get rid of it." With 3/5 of the judge already agreeing, the law doesn't have a chance. In essence, with only 3 particular people, someone can 'pick and choose' what laws they want, and what they don't. This isn't what we want.

Quote:

Either only the people or the combination of both the people and the minsters. Not sure if this is what you meant in the above quote or not.

It says that a 51% vote among the ministers and a 2/3 among the people to impeach a minister: in other words, both.

jdjdjd · July 9, 2002, 15:50

Quote:

Originally posted by LordImpact
OK OK! I GET THE POINT!

But I like the chief justice idea. (in case you havent figured that out yet

) Like trip said, it would simplify things. I say we let the justices decide on their own structure. As long as an odd number is present, it should be alright.

This is one of the most important pieces of the whole thing, the justices, once the court is established and some parameters, like size, term, what they can hear, etc., are set up in the Constitution, should then set up its own structure and court rules. Again, this is done to keep the court independent.

Sheik · July 9, 2002, 20:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

As others have said in other threads, if the court can go out and do whatever it wants, then that will give it too much power. What if 3 out of the 5 members of a court decide that "hey, we don't like this one law, let's get rid of it." With 3/5 of the judge already agreeing, the law doesn't have a chance. In essence, with only 3 particular people, someone can 'pick and choose' what laws they want, and what they don't. This isn't what we want.

I didn't even think of that.

Trip you make a very good point. Will there be any powers to overturn a court decision?

LordImpact · July 9, 2002, 20:42

Hopefully the fact that the court can only rule on cases brought to their attention would prevent the judges from running amok. But it is human nature to find loop holes to get what one wants. Prehaps there should be an emergency clause in the amendment that allows a court ruling to be suspended pending further investigation, and one for the court to be dissolved and new justices selected. This could be done by a vote among the people. It should be noted that in the United States, Congress is the only body that can remove a judge. Since we don't have a legislative body, the decision should fall to the people.

--Impact

notyoueither · July 9, 2002, 23:44

This is shaping up well.

One question... A judge wants to stand for another term. Is it the ministers who decide this?

notyoueither · July 9, 2002, 23:49

re the court running amok. That is what impeachment is about.

Suppose that 67% of the people vote for an idea that 75% of the ministers agree on. Suppose that the idea has nothing what so ever to do with any other part of the CoL (or constitution). Suppose that 3 reactionaries on the court go out of their way to turf the plan. How long do you think that court would remain unchanged? Especially with other members of the court leading the charge to topple the tyrants.

LordImpact · July 9, 2002, 23:59

Exactly. The Judge should be removed after he has his own impeachment trial, and the people vote him out of office. Also on the issue of Impeachment, I don't think anyone who has been impeached should be able to run for any office ever again. I don't know if it should be made an amendment or just a standard.

--Impact

Jon Shafer · July 10, 2002, 00:05

The judges are to be re-picked when their terms are over. If they wish to serve again, then they can speak with the powers that be.

notyoueither · July 10, 2002, 00:07

Trip, I think you will find very vocal and persistent opposition to that when this goes to official poll.

Jon Shafer · July 10, 2002, 00:26

So do you suggest they serve permanent terms?

notyoueither · July 10, 2002, 00:31

No. I suggest that politics of the parties, and the decision of a single individual be removed from direct involvement in the process of reconfirmation for a sitting judge.

Jon Shafer · July 10, 2002, 00:41

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
No. I suggest that politics of the parties, and the decision of a single individual be removed from direct involvement in the process of reconfirmation for a sitting judge.

Then why not confirmation in the first place?

If a new President refuses to appoint a popular and successful judge, and instead appoint one of his own cronies, he could find support for him diminishing among more middle-ground people in all parties.

notyoueither · July 10, 2002, 01:19

Yes Trip, the idea of confirmation by the people as part of the process was being welcomed in the discussion thread, only it wasn't one of the options you polled for. You asked for elected, not confirmed. Ask the people if they wish to vote to confirm, and I think you know what will happen. Hense, if you go by a poll then discussion, you will miss the benefit of the discussion.

I think a consensus was being arrived at that initial nomination by the president should be followed by 51% of the ministers approving and then 51% of the people confirming.

Reconfirmation came late in the discussion. However, I believe you will find more people favour reconfirmation solely on the basis of the judge being willing and the people accepting. If it followed a discussion of the matter.

disorganizer · July 10, 2002, 06:50

Why not the following:
Let the citizenry elect the judges. A judge will stay there live-long until he resigns (immediate election for his replacement is held) or the court is disbanded.

Disbanding the court is done by a simple citizen poll. This should be set up by ANY citizen and should be up for 5 days. If it is accepted, the court COMPLETELY leaves office, but all judges can be reelected on the following full-reelection of the court.

We should also deny any political activity (party or group membership as well as holding an office) for any of the judges, just to enforce their impartiallity.
Meaning: No member of a party or a citizen-group and no official position holder can be nominated for judge, as well as no judge can be nominated for any official position.

mtgillespie · July 10, 2002, 08:40

Quote:

Originally posted by disorganizer
We should also deny any political activity (party or group membership as well as holding an office) for any of the judges, just to enforce their impartiallity.
Meaning: No member of a party or a citizen-group and no official position holder can be nominated for judge, as well as no judge can be nominated for any official position.

This is a waste of time. So someone is in a party, they resign, and that immediately changes their views? As long as we can remove judges who become radical, there is no problem with them belonging to a party. No-one is completely a-political, whether they belong to a party or not, and we should notpretend that this is the case. We should accept that people are political, and have judges from a spectrum of political views. How about this instead :-

There shall never be more than 2 judges from any one political party. Party membership is considered to continue for one month after resignation. There must always be one independant judge at all times.

That will probably need a lot of changing, but you get the basic idea.

Harovan · July 10, 2002, 09:01

The government shall in no way be able to impeach judges. Its members may vote as citizens, but not more. The 51% majority Trip proposed, may lead to the right to impeach a judge by one of the political parties, that happens to have the current majority. Another try of the government, to gain absolute power

.

Countries, where the governments are able to impeach a judge, are corrupt. The only power, able to impeach a judge, shall be the court itself.

Sheik · July 10, 2002, 09:27

The government cant have the power to impeach judges because the court has the power to impeach other government officilas right? You can't have two groups with the power to impeach each other and still keep the system running properly.

Harovan · July 10, 2002, 09:32

According to Trip it can. Btw, this matter has not been discussed before.

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
A judge may be removed from his office by a 51% vote amongst the ministers and a 2/3 vote amongst the people. In turn, the court may impeach a minister with a 75% vote within the court, and a 51% amongst the people (as opposed to only a 2/3 vote amongst the people).

disorganizer · July 10, 2002, 10:26

it should maybe be vice-versa:
51% for citizen vote, 75% for ministers ;-)

@mtgillespie: this would also be an idea. but i still would not like an official being a judge at the same time. this would be the same "mixing the 3 powers" as judges being appointed by the government.

mtgillespie · July 10, 2002, 10:46

Quote:

Originally posted by disorganizer

@mtgillespie: this would also be an idea. but i still would not like an official being a judge at the same time. this would be the same "mixing the 3 powers" as judges being appointed by the government.

I completely agree on that point.