Amendment II - Court Idea Compilation Mk. II

[Jon Shafer]

Since the thread got sooooo very long, I'm posting (yet) another thread.

Here is my proposed amendment as it stands:

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).

Here is an excellent summary courtesy of Captain, so you guys don't have to read 4 pages of stuff :

GENERAL SUMMARY of the JUDICIAL THREADS

(Note: All polls refer to % of active citizens).

Major Issues with General Consensus:


1. Judges should not hold any other office while being a judge.


2. Three judges should sit on each case. The quorum is 3. Which judges sit on which case will be determined based on availability, randomness, or a cycle.


3. There should be more judges, at least 5, so that at least 3 of them will always be available for duty.


4. The main duties of Judges are to determine validity of polls, repolls, and other contentious laws - according to the existing Constitution and laws. Politics are not to be considered.


5a. Judges have the additional role of "filtering" accusations/charges against people (in "Hearings") and determining which ones warrant proceeding (with "Trial") and which should be dismissed.

5b. This includes deciding whether there are grounds for Impeachment trials to proceed. Judges do not have the power to indict on their own.


6. Judges can be removed by the same impeachment process as ministers. If more judges are on trial than are available for sitting in judgement, all judges will then face a Confirmation poll (51% or 2/3). Any unconfirmed Judge will have to be replaced. Hearings/Trials will then proceed.


7. Impeachment cases have "Hearings" which may proceed to "Trial". Polling cases do not have "Hearings" or "Trial". Judges simply make a decision and the poll is either valid or not.


8. Judges have no power to sentence, no power to create new laws (other than by the same means that regular citizens do), and no power to enforce their recommendations. They simply decide the validity of polls & law, and whether the law has been broken.


9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. 2/3 is required. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain.


10. Judges must publish a report giving the legal reasons for their decision to validate the ruling. Only the majority opinion must be given for validation. Dissenting opinion should be given but is not required for validation. In the event of a Unanimous ruling, the report must still be published for validation. This is in case of appeal and to keep Justice transparent. Reports should include any recommendations.


11. Judges cannot seek out cases on their own. (But a concerned judge can bring a case before the Judiciary as long as they do not sit on it or any other current case. This prevents Judges from "trading favours". The simpler loophole is for a Judge to simply PM a citizen who will take up their cause for them.)



Major Issues without Consensus


1. Should Judges be appointed, or elected, or something else?

a. Judges should not be elected as this leads to a popularity contest, rather than who will best serve the nation. Judges should be appointed.

b. Judges should not be appointed since this would lead to too much political interference and leading to Judges who are beholden to certain ministers/officials. Judges should be elected.

c. A possibility is appointment by the President (or ministers) with a required 51% confirmation of nominees by the citizens (not an election). This is a compromise.


2. Should Judges have term limits? If so, how long? Should the terms be staggered to provide rotation?

a. Unlimited terms could lead to corruption. People should be able to remove bad judges without resorting to impeachment trial (especially if multiple judges are protecting each other by dismissing charges).

b. Limited terms means Judges will have to play to the crowds or appease the ministers when it comes time for re-election/re-appointment. Unlimited terms prevent politicizing justice or vendettas. Besides, removal already exists, from retirement and impeachment.


3. Should Judges have the power of injuction to halt the game ?

a. Yes, to prevent unconstitutional acts. Example given was that of a President engaging in an unlawful war (that which the public has voted against).

b. No, the Justice system can punish criminal acts after they are committed, but not prevent them in advance since no crime has taken place.

(Also, the chance of the President unlawfully engaging in some act is zero, since at present the Constitution does not require officials to obey polls.)


4. Should Judges have the power of injunction to halt a contested poll until a decision is made? but not the game?


5. Judicial decisions are open to appeal, but what is the mechanism for appeal?

a. A review by the other judges (not involved in the case) who then decide whether there are any legal grounds for granting a new trial.

b. A poll to the public with a 51% or 2/3 vote success forces a new trial.


6. Where the law is unclear or non-existant, should Judges be required to dismiss the case?

a. Yes. No relevant law exists, therefore, the Judges have no right to continue a trial. Any new law created should not be retroactive because citizens should not be bound in fear of unknown new laws condemning them for present actions.

b. No. Judges may place the case on Hold while requesting the legislature (that is, all the citizens) to clarify the law or create a new law, by discussion & poll. The case can then proceed.


7. Should governments be allowed a Notwithstanding Clause which lets them temporarily ignore Judicial rulings or delay their implementation?


8. Should there be any clauses similar to Presidental Pardon?


9. Should Judges be allowed to be members of political parties?


How's that? Have I left anything significant out?

[Sheik]

Trip this looks good. I just skimmed through it now and will take another look at it in the morning. This is a well-written amendment. Thanks for working so hard on it.

[Epistax]

1) Judges should be appointed by the president, and a simple majority of the congress (however we define such) agrees
2) No term limits, No term length. (woah man) Judges are not elected, they are appointed. They are chosen and accepted by those in charge. If it is felt they can no longer performed their duties, they are removed. By EITHER congress, or other justices. Executive branch has no say. They may also resign.
3) Justices should be able to halt the game if three justices agree (assuming 5 max), MEANING if only three justices are present, they must all agree. If there are any more, any 3 agreeing can halt the game.
4) I don't get it
5) A 2/3rds majority of congress may override the justice, although this should never have to happen.
6) A justice's duty is to interpret the law already written. If no law exists, they cannot judge. They do not have to reach a decision if they do not see fit.
7) I don't know.
8) Possibly in the case of a non unanimous ruling against someone, not sure.
9) Yes, but I would ask judges not to campaign for anyone, or push their views.


These are all opinions of EPISTAX! This is how I would see the system. Someone say where I am wrong so I might slap you. peace.

[notyoueither]

That's fairly good as it stands. It contains compromises based on widely expressed views thoughout the many threads.

If anyone seriously has a problem with any one issue, they may feel free to seek an amendment in 3 weeks.

[Aggie]

A few points and my suggestions. First in the concensus area. It now reads this way.
"9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. 2/3 is required. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain."

The 2/3 should be removed so it should read, imho:
9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain.

This way the court could rule 3-2 in a case if all 5 vote. The otherway it was said, there could be a no decison on a 3-2 vote since this isn't 2/3

Now for the nonconcensus issues:
1) As it is in the amendment right know is good, i say leave as is, but if you feel compelled to change option c is best.

3) Should Judges have the power of injuction to halt the game ?

Yes, because even though we can not foresee an unlawful act taking place, it still could and thus judges should have the power to stop it, IF ASKED.

5. Judicial decisions are open to appeal, but what is the mechanism for appeal?

May I suggest an appeal to the ministers, with a unanimous vote of the minsters required to overturn. The reason for this is, whats the purpose of a court if all their decisions can be overturned easily. Decisions should only be overturned if blatantly erronious. In that case all minsiters might vote to overturn it.

6) Where the law is unclear or non-existant, should Judges be required to dismiss the case?
No, if the law is unclear the job of judges is to interprit. If no law exist they should dismiss.

7) Should governments be allowed a Notwithstanding Clause which lets them temporarily ignore Judicial rulings or delay their implementation?
NO

9) Should Judges be allowed to be members of political parties?

Yes, because they are people and participants in the game too, the goal is for them to leave their cards at the door when they come to make a decision.

One last thing in the impeachment section, could we change the 51% peoples vote to a 60%. As I've said before this needs to be higher % than 51.

Those are my opinions and I hope everybody considers them.
Respectfully submitted
Aggie

[Jon Shafer]

Keep in mind, the only thing up for ratification is what's in quotes as the amendment. Everything else has been written up by Captain, to be commented on.

[ThePlagueRat]

Aggie, I agree with you on all of these nine nonconsensus issues.
All these issues should be polled upon, as already stated by many participants here.


About Trips proposal:
Well written and constistently formulated, but it's not enough for this whole amendment. All the other matters discussed we can see in Captains summary. There are still some questions there...

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by Trip
Keep in mind, the only thing up for ratification is what's in quotes as the amendment. Everything else has been written up by Captain, to be commented on.

So the general consensus issues could not be ratified then?
We have to poll on each of them in one single poll first?
Or in many polls?

Think about it... I say one big poll!
(There are sooo many already.)

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
So the general consensus issues could not be ratified then?
We have to poll on each of them in one single poll first?
Or in many polls?

Think about it... I say one big poll!
(There are sooo many already.)

Yes, but, we can't know if enough people support these things without another poll. This doesn't mean that what Captain came up with isn't going to be included, it just means that we need to debate more.

[Captain]

Aggie, appeal to ministers? That's a little too politicizing for me...

I think, apart from possible nomination/appointment issues, the Justice system should be as independent of ministers as possible.

[Kloreep]

These members are to be appointed by the President, and approved by 2/3 of the ministers.

I still say approval should be by the public at large.

[ThePlagueRat]

Yes... we need to debate on those nonconsensus issues. That's for sure. Both Aggie and Captain have made some good points here recently.

The above issues can be tried in a poll since the consencus is more clear. Which of them is formulated clearly enough for us to vote yes/no to? hmm... many of them as it seems to me.

[Aggie]

I agree, captain, that appeal to ministers does lead to some political problems. But the only alternative I see is to have no appeal. Because if decisions can be overturned by a vote, the whole purpose of the courts come into question. I mean if a decision is unpopular it will simple get overturned by vote, especially if the vote needed is 50%, and that could lead to chaos.
Aggie

[Moral Hazard]

Everything omitted I am in complete agreement with and have no questions about.

4. The main duties of Judges are to determine validity of polls, repolls, and other contentious laws - according to the existing Constitution and laws. Politics are not to be considered.

I assume this mean their rulings will no way be based on politics and only previous laws and the constitution in which case I agree wholeheartedly.

5b. This includes deciding whether there are grounds for Impeachment trials to proceed. Judges do not have the power to indict on their own.

I believe that politicians can still be impeached for simply being unpopular. So I am unclear what the courts duties are here, is it dismiss scurious attempt which will definetly not succeed? Or have we decided that an official can only be removed for valid reasons? I have not seen any poll to indicate this, if their was then please post a link and I'll remove my criticism. Hence I disagree with 5 being generally agreed on.

7. Impeachment cases have "Hearings" which may proceed to "Trial". Polling cases do not have "Hearings" or "Trial". Judges simply make a decision and the poll is either valid or not.

Disagree for the same general reason as 5.

1. Should Judges be appointed, or elected, or something else?
This issue requires a a clear poll as I don't think we will ever reach a consensus through argueing on the thread. That last poll indicated that they should be appointed but comfirmation remains in doubt. I think if options a, b, and c were presented than we c would win in a landslide.

2. Should Judges have term limits? If so, how long? Should the terms be staggered to provide rotation?

needs a poll I think


3 and 4. Should Judges have the power of injunction to halt a contested poll until a decision is made? but not the game?

Concerning three i agree with Cap's assessment that disobeying polls is not considered illegal at this point. Concernig 4, yes they should be allowed to put an injuction on poll decisions.

5. Judicial decisions are open to appeal, but what is the mechanism for appeal?

b. A poll to the public with a 51% or 2/3 vote success forces a new trial.

B is the proper decision with 2/3 required I think.

7. Should governments be allowed a Notwithstanding Clause which lets them temporarily ignore Judicial rulings or delay their implementation?

I think you can leave this up to a court decision in a case by case decision.

8. Should there be any clauses similar to Presidental Pardon?

Certainly not.

9. Should Judges be allowed to be members of political parties?

Yes but they must completely support thier decision through law or the constitution.

Aggie.
The 2/3 should be removed so it should read, imho:
9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain.

This way the court could rule 3-2 in a case if all 5 vote. The otherway it was said, there could be a no decison on a 3-2 vote since this isn't 2/3

I agree.

3) Should Judges have the power of injuction to halt the game ?

Yes, because even though we can not foresee an unlawful act taking place, it still could and thus judges should have the power to stop it, IF ASKED.


What are the cases in which officials can do unlawful game acts besides of course, retaining control after being voted out of office?

5. Judicial decisions are open to appeal, but what is the mechanism for appeal?

2/3 is best, since that would change the constitution, rendering the ruling moot.

One last thing in the impeachment section, could we change the 51% peoples vote to a 60%. As I've said before this needs to be higher % than 51.
I agree.

[Moral Hazard]

About the ammendment itself. The points by Captain often fly in it's face and I'd advise that it is rewritten incorporating the discussion in the previous threads.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Well, since there's not all that much debate here (yet ), I will at least state my feelings on the contested ideas.

1. Method of selecting judges.

I still believe appointment by the peoples' Democratically chosen, trusted officials is the way to go. Election is too political and brings about the (vague) possibility of contested elections from the very start. I would however not oppose strongly the idea of appointment, followed by confirmation, if it appeared the will of the people was strongly in odds with my main view.

2. Term limits

I have less strong feelings about this, but I slant towards having them - two months at a time is fine by me. This at least gives others the chance to participate -the people can always vote no confidence in the new candidates and to restore the originals if we so wish. That is what the Demo game is all about, isn't it? First - the peoples' will be done, and seeond - give everyone every chance in the world to participate wherevere and however they want. Obviously some are less suited to Ministerial positions or Judiciary, but we at least must grant them the right to run for election.

3. Power to halt the game

This may be heading towards a little too much power, but such an issue will likely never arise. My feeling is in accord with the other posters' here - grant them the power.

4. Power to halt/restart a poll

You bet. This is a large part of what the Judiciary is, IMO.

5. Mechanism for Appeal

I think perhaps it's best for the people to have a say here - but how will we avoid silly cases being brought forth to waste peoples' time? Perhaps if we make it so that there is a minimum number of voters in such a poll for it to be considered valid? If someone else can think of another way around this let us know.

6. If the law is unclear/absent

It is the Judiciary's job to clarify laws! If this requires a suspension on the case until clarification is made, so be it. If the law doesn't exist, then there can be no case on principle, but then it is up to someone to ensure next time there IS a law.

7. Can the Government temporarily ignore rulings and/or sentences?

No. Why should they?

8. Presidential Pardon Clauses

N O.

9. Judges can be members of a political party

Sure. But if their politicking is seen to be excessive or to interfere with their job, they should be able to b e removed via the same process as they are chosen (by Ministerial acceptance of the removal and/or confirmation by the people.

60% required for impeachment (Aggie's idea) - this sounds fine.

[Sheik]

Trip this looks like a good comprimise. I might change a few things but I don't really have any huge problems with it.

Posted by Kloreep

I still say approval [ of judges] should be by the public at large.

Some problems could arise here. Like Trip said if the public voted on judges the people with the most visibility on the forums could be elected. With judges we want to make sure that we get people who we know will do a good job. Since the people elected the ministers we should view them as responsible poeple and we should let them choose the best people for the job. Judges don't really need to campaign so what would the people vote on? Having the judges appointed by the president and approved by the ministers is a good idea.

[Epistax]

When someone is elected by the populACE, it is because they are populAR. This might be fine with little positions such as president and ministers But for judges, whose job is basically to keep things on track, their duty is to officiate as independently as possible. In theory, the best judge is the person that knows nothing, and knows no one.

Now when someone is appointed by the president, and accepted by the ministers, there really is little in a popularity contest. It's ultimately up to one individual to select someone. If they are bias, they are rejected by congress (or whatever we are calling it). If they become bias, they are removed. If they are unbias, no matter how unpopular, should they be removed? IMHO, no, not as long as they are doing what is right, although the congress or other justices can have the person removed.

[Moral Hazard]

um when people are saying good compromise by Trip, you do realize that his proposed ammendment hasn't changed?

[Moral Hazard]

A confirmation by the people would be a yes/no vote, so it's not a popularity contest really. If they are merely appointed by one person and confirmed by the ministers, he will probably go with the person he knows most all else being equal.

[Captain]

About #4 of the contested issues...

What I meant was, that in the event of a poll being done, whereby:
i) the poll has been charged with being invalid such as improper procedure or setup,
ii) and the poll is close to finishing (or has finished) and actions based on the poll will soon take place,
iii) and Judges deem such actions to be serious enough that if such actions based on a faulty poll are carried out, will cause great confusion and harm,

Judges can order an injunction to prevent any actions from being taken based on the poll, until a final judgment about its validity is rendered.

This differs from Issue #3, because while an Injuction on certain actions can be placed, the game does not actually stop.

For instance, in Issue #3, if the Judges find a Trade to be possibly illegal, they would be able to halt the game - no playing of turns until the Trade's legality is resolved. Everything in-game stops.

In Issue #4, the Judges would be able to prevent such a Trade from being carried out until the Trade's legality is decided, but without stopping the game. All other game actions, such as exploring, building, other trades, war, etc... would proceed, but that actions based around that specific Trade are barred.


Hope that makes more sense.

And in case it's not obvious from my description, I prefer Injuctions Power of #4 over #3.

[Captain]

To clarify on the issue of APPEALS.

Cases where an appeal is granted does not mean the former decision is overturned. It simply means a new trial is to be had, and if and only if a different decision is made, will the original decision be declared invalid.

Appeals are only granted if the possibility exists of a different verdict, they do not necessarily force a different verdict. Cases where appeals are granted, can have the original verdict upheld.

Generally, until the new verdict is reached, the old verdict stays in place. Or an injunction can be created until the new verdict is reached.


Therefore, having some mechanism for appeal does not diminish the power of the court. It merely provides a more robust form of Justice.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Aggie
A few points and my suggestions. First in the concensus area. It now reads this way.
"9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. 2/3 is required. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain."

The 2/3 should be removed so it should read, imho:
9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain.

This way the court could rule 3-2 in a case if all 5 vote. The otherway it was said, there could be a no decison on a 3-2 vote since this isn't 2/3

Well, this isn't in the amendment yet, but you're right. I agree, this should be changed to your wording, or at least something better than what I wrote. Majority opinion it is.

[GodKing]

I like the way it is writen. I myself would volunteer to be one of the judges. Excelent discussion.

[Captain]

Clarification on NotWithStanding Clause:

I realize I haven't given any reasons for having one, but the primary reason is to allow governments to "get on with the game".

Trials can take long periods of time and Injunctions (if granted to Judges as a power) can hold up a game. A government would invoke a NotWithStanding Clause to (temporarily) ignore Court orders. Hopefully they would have a good reason, but it is not necessary. Governments who abuse this power would be severely punished at election time.

Traditionally, NWS clauses have time limits. Each invocation of the clause must be reviewed within a certain time period to be renewed.

Note that the NWS is invoked by the administration (President upon advisement of ministers) but must be "ratified" by legislature (that is, all of us active citizens). This is similar to a emergency poll to ignore a court order.

The NWS clause is used for poll/policy issues, not when people are on trial.

Also, it is a "democratic" safeguard in the sense that sometimes, Courts will reach decisions (perhaps deciding that a certain law is unconstitutional and thereby striking it down) but the general will of the populace supports such a law. Governments can invoke the NWS Clause to maintain the law.

For example, a previously existing poll (such as the naming convention) which has become enshrined as law (or tradition), does not hold up to Constitutional rules. Judges declare it invalid and order a repoll. However, the government feels this poll result is necessary for the good functioning of the game or that repolling would be disruptive at this time, and the populace supports the govt. They can temporarily ignore the court's ruling.

Generally, I don't see much use for it, but IRL, governments seldom use it either. The last time I saw it used was when Alberta used the NWS clause to uphold their law defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman (that law was deemed unconstitutional and "discriminatory" but the vast majority of Albertans wanted that law so they ignored the court ruling and used the NWS clause). While we don't have any such similar issues on these forums, who knows? maybe it'll be useful, maybe not.

[Captain]

Lastly, a forgotten issue!

Should there be a time limit for trials to be completed and verdicts rendered? Should there be a time limit for non-trial verdicts to be rendered (polling validity, etc...)?

If so, what should that time limit be?

Should there be a time limit from the start of deliberation to the end verdict to prevent endless trials or endless deliberation?

Should we also have a time limit from the time of accusation to start of deliberation to ensure claims/charges are looked at speedily?

(Deliberation refers to the hearing & trial, or in the case of non-trial issues, from when the Judges decide to have their chat.)

[Moral Hazard]

Aren't we making this awfully complex? I don't see the need for all the rules. Something along the lines of what Trip originally posted is all that is necessary. (I disagree with several of the things he posted)

Time limits can be left up to the court I think.

[Kuciwalker]

Unlimited turns -

We should not have unlimited turns. However, to get rid of the politicking, judges must wait two terms before being reappointed or reelected.

Election/Appointment -

They should be appointed, with 2/3 confirmation required.

Injunctions -

Judges should have the power to halt both a poll and the game.

Unclear/Nonexistant laws -

If it is unclear, they should be able to decide what it means and rewrite it for clarity. If there is no law, they should dismiss the case.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
A confirmation by the people would be a yes/no vote, so it's not a popularity contest really.

Exactly. There is no reason I can think of that would make the ministers better at confirming or rejecting the appointees.

Also, I think the citizenry would have more respect for the court if they had a say in its composition.

If they are merely appointed by one person and confirmed by the ministers, he will probably go with the person he knows most all else being equal.

I suppose that might be a problem with having them appointed... but I don't think this could be helped under any system.

[Sheik]

Originally posted by Captain
Lastly, a forgotten issue!

Should there be a time limit for trials to be completed and verdicts rendered? Should there be a time limit for non-trial verdicts to be rendered (polling validity, etc...)?

Yes. It should be a long time though maybe up to a week after the trail has ended.