Amendment II - Court Idea Compilation Mk. II

[Togas]

I've really been enjoying this discussion, but I have to point out that the ONLY thing that will be official is what is contained in the text of the Amendment. We may all agree on some sort of interpretation, but it must be put into text and included in the amendment itself before it is voted on by the nation.

I do feel this could be written better, though. It's the lawyer in me. The language needed to be cleaned up. I've taken the liberty to clean it up a bit and to clarify the proposed amendment. Please review and consider --

Revision of Amendment originally posted by Trip
This amendment hereby creates an official Apolytonian Court (hereafter refered to as "The Court")

The Court is constituted to rule upon: contested disputes involving legal interpretation, validity of polls, violations of the Constitution, impeachment, or any other legal dispute of national importance.

The Court is composed of Five (5) Justices. Each Justice is to be appointed by the President, and each must be approved by a majority of the populace in a Confirmation Election.

The Court is to decide among itself a 'Senior Justice', who will be respondible for ensuring that a report is published for each decision that communicates the rationale behind the decision made, and presiding over any hearings before The Court.

A quorum of at least 3 Justices must be involved in any ruling that is made. Should The Court be tied about how to rule on an issue, the Senior Justice is to decide the result of the issue.

All rulings are immediately official and final. The same issue can only be brought back to The Court with 75% of the Justices agreeing to rehear the matter.

The Court cannot act on any issue until a citizen of the nation brings forth an Issue to The Court.

Issues to The Court should be posted publically and must involve a dispute that The Court is empowered to rule upon.

The court may impeach a minister with a 75% vote within the court, and a 51% amongst the people, but only after a Call for Impeachment has been made by a citizen of the nation.

A Justice may not serve in any other governmental post. Each Justice serves a term of two (2) months in length. At the end of that term the Justice may be reappointed by the President. There is no limit to the number of terms a Justice may serve. A Justice may be removed from his office by a 51% vote amongst the ministers and a 2/3 vote amongst the people.

notes:
Perhaps we should have 7 members, since so many people are interested in being Justices. It would also ensure that we can easily have the 3 member quarum needed to rule on a matter.

I'm not thrilled with the 2 month term for all Justices. They should have longer terms or, at least, staggered terms. The court needs some stability, two months is too short and causes us to change the court too often.

--Togas

[Sheik]

Originally posted by Togas

Perhaps we should have 7 members, since so many people are interested in being Justices. It would also ensure that we can easily have the 3 member quarum needed to rule on a matter.

There shouldn't be a problem with having seven justices. Does anyone onject to having seven members?

[Kuciwalker]

3 months would be good. There should be 3 groups though, staggered at one month. This way the court is not all beholden to one official.

[Togas]

Originally posted by skywalker
3 months would be good. There should be 3 groups though, staggered at one month. This way the court is not all beholden to one official.

If we had 7 Justices. All of them could first be appointed upon ratification by the President or a special committee chosen by the President/People (idea!) using the following plan:

3 "three month" Justices
2 "two month" Justices
2 "one month" Justices

Then, once their time was up, they could be reappointed or replaced by the current president, but for the full three month term.

Every President of Apolytonia would have the opportunity to appoint (or reappoint) at least 2 Justices during his or her term.

Good?

If we like it, let's change the amendment to include it.

--Togas

[jdjdjd]

This is a lot....I'd like to make this point or proposal again.... leave many of the minor details of the court to the court to decide.

some examples,
what constitutes a quorum
who issues the decisions and whether they include a dissenting opinion
time limits on cases
whether they remain in political party
whether they can be involved in election camaigning
can they dismiss a case
how a trial is heard
etc

we should have the amendment do the following:

1. set the size of the court
2. limit the cases the court can hear
3. elaborate how a case is brought before the court
4. how can a judge be impeached (or perhaps a separate amendment on impeachment that encompasses all officials and they get handled in the same manner...i.e. judges make sure case is valid and people vote on ouster of official)
5. how does court fit into impeachment proceding of any official (see 4 above)
6. Is an appeal allowed ( I say no, why have the court, just poll everyone, instead)
7. allow injunctions or pardons, if we decide they have such powers
8. set term limits or advise they are unlimited
9. how they get into office
10. the type of majority required in the court....simple, 2/3's and so on...if different for impeachment, say then spell out.

And that, I think is it. Thats a lot to start with, then when created the court can decide the rest.

As for an amendment, this is a proposal, using some of what Trip already wrote. I also have split out Impeachment, so that it is unfiorm for all officials, this of course would amend what has previously been included in the constitution. Also, I do incorporate the 3 polls already decided upon. I am sure that all will not be happy, but I think a good compromise..

*******
This amendment hereby creates an official High Court of Apolytonia. The amendment will outline its construct and scope of power.

1. Construct of the High Court:
a. Justices are to be appointed by the President, and approved by 2/3 of the Ministers.
b. The Court is to include five members and a Chief Justice may be selected by the Court.
c. Justices may serve an unlimited number of terms.
d. A Justice may not hold another governmental position during his/her time on the court.
e. Each term will be two months in length.

2. Scope of Power of the High Court
a. The Court is entitled to rule upon and only upon cases brought in front of it. It can by no means pursue cases.
b. A case can be brought to the Court by any citizen, except a Justice. The complaint is to be spelled out and PM'd to a Jutice of the Court (if a Chief Justice is chosen, then the PM should be directed to him), or in a manner later decided on by the Court and posted for the general public.
c. The Court must have a simple majority to make a decision, the Court must makes its own rules as to what a quorum is, and detail that to the general public.
d. A case may be appealed. 75% of the entire Court (or at least 4 justices) must agree to hear an appeal. Then a simple majority of the entire Court is needed, i.e. at least three Justices, to overrule the original decision.
e. The Court may hear cases as to disputes over the constitutionality of an action by a governmental official.
f. The Court may hear cases regarding the validity of a poll, and an injuction may be issued to hold a poll from further action by a simple majority of the entire Court, until they rule. If valid, then the poll is reopened, otherwise it is closed down. Any poll that concludes prior to reaching the Court, may be overturned by the Court in the normal course of business.
f. The Court may also hear other cases not involving constitutional matters and impeachment, if it deems a case brought to them is with merit.
g. In order to allow for proper appeal and in order to help set common law and court precedent, the court is to issue written decisions.
h. Other rules or regulations the Court deems appropriate for housekeeping purposes, in order to maintain their independence, or otherwise, and is not in direct conflict with this amendment or other amendments to the constitution may be made as they see fit. These must be posted for the general public.
******

Proposed amendment for impeachment:

This amendment will hereby set the rules of impeachment for all officials of the governement in an elected or appointed post, and limited to these positions, President, Vice President, Justice of the High Court, and Minister.

1. Any citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an official to the President or Vice President, who then must poll the Ministers.

2. Should a majority agree, the case is then presented to the High Court, and the President or his dedignee will make the case for impeachment, and the defendent or his designee may present his defense.

3. The High Court will review the case and by vote of a simple majority can approve the case is with merit and to be brought to the people.

4. The general populace will then review the case and vote for removal from office of the defendant. This requires a 2/3 vote.

5. Should the general populace feel an official is being protected for political reasons, they may by referendum (a vote of the general populace), vote to impeach a party by a 75% margin, and therefore bypass the Minister's Vote and the Court's ruling. Then prosecution and defense arguments may be presented directly to the public, who then must conquer by 67% vote to remove the official from office.

Well, what do you think?

[Kuciwalker]

I think we should hold a poll on each individual issue, and any part of it that passes with a 2/3 vote wins (these being yes/no polls).

[GodKing]

I like the way Togas has it written. I have read enough legal stuff over the years, and might I say "job well done".

I would change the 51% into "a simple majority". Look at how the election for president is going - 1 vote is less than 1% now. Could lead to problems that it is best to avoid prior to if at all possible.

I would leave out the specific info at this stage regarding impeachment. I keep seeing people saying different opinions on how much of a vote for this and how much for that. Perhaps we can have this as a seperate ammendment to the constitution.

As a lot of us want to be in the court system (and on top of it I don't think there will be to much work) I think that we shouldn't have any more than 7. It is nice to see that people want to be involved.

How is this senior justice to work? Are they senior on that case, or are they senior in all cases? If so, do they have to sit in on all cases, or would they be more like an administrator for the justices saying - you sit on this case, you on that one, etc.

The way it is worded now, it sounds like the chief must be on each and every case, and the other justices sit in as they can. The chief would be responsible for all the writing of decisions also.

Hows about this. The chief doesn't sit on any case. The case must be proposed to them - they look at it to see if it falls within the purview of the court system. If so, they assign judges (3) to hear it. If they ask for an appeal - they appeal to the chief who can decide if a) he wants to hear it as a solo judge b) he can assign it to the other 3 judges for a retrial or c) the appeal is not based on a point of law, thus no appeal is allowed. The chief would still be responsible for the report(s) (although he wouldn't necessarily have to write them himself).

in terms of staggering the appointments so there isn't a massive turn-over of the court at once, I would call on the next president to nominate at most 1 person to the court each week, until all positions are filled. This would undoubtable call for having a short justice for the first couple of weeks. But it would allow persons in the next term to appoint some judges as well.

Can we say instead of 2 months - a term of 60 days.

OK, instead of 2 cents i probably tossed in 4, so thanks for reading.

[ThePlagueRat]

As stated by others as well, Togas legal formulations can be used as the basis for a final poll, and then for the exact clauses in the amendment. Written by a member with the experience in these matters, it speaks for itself... Or what?

[jdjdjd]

Again, I think if there is a Chief, or not, and who writes the decision is up to the court. We do not want to tie the court to so many rules, when we don't even know how it will work.

I refer back to my post above and what I think is needed to start, the court can do the rest. So long as they follow the construct I tried to set above, does it matter to Justice if there is a Chief , or what is a quorum, or who writes the opinion or who writes the dissenting opinion, or if the Chief is at every hearing/trial.

Again, lets create the court, with the basics and let the day to day stuff be left to the court, who actually have to live and breath it every day, make those calls.

[Ninot]

Some awesome ideas.. i just suggest we abandon any ideas of a notwithstanding clause.

Too unconstitutional, can lead to some overpowered actions.

[Moral Hazard]

I really like what Togas has written. I guess the court will be given power over impeachment. hmm.

About 7 justices I personally support it but thier was a poll (unofficial) which emphatically endorsed 5 judges.

[Moral Hazard]

Oh by the way I think the first court should be appointed not by the president but by a rotation of ministers, especially considering the prospect of dual presidency being ruled on by the court.

Meaning.
The President(s) pick(s) 1
VP picks 1
SMC picks 1
FAM picks 1
PW Minister picks 1
City Planner picks 1
IE Minister picks 1
Econ Minister picks 1

oops that's 8.

[Kramerman]

Wow, this is alot of detail, but thats good so as to avoid future problems. I will just say I agree with a seven man high court. I also think how the US supreme court is organized wouldn't be a bad model. In otherwords, the Pres should appoint the members, but they must be "ratified", or accepted by Congress (actually, I think it is just the Senate but not sure), before becoming a justice.

In Apolytonia this would correlate to the justices being appointed by the elected president and then a simple yes or no vote by the citizenry (since we are a direct democracy and not a republic) to approve or reject the President's appointments. I think this is an excellent idea.

As far as term lengths are concerned, I agree that they need to be staggered, but I am not especially particular or concerned with their exact length. I would agree with whatever you guys come up with.

Kman

[Kramerman]

I just thought of something.
If we do a staggard selection of the Supreme court judges, then it will be a long time until we have the court up and running. What I mean is, for a while the court will only have a couple judges, then a maybe 4, and then it'll finally be complete. But in that time that the court is not complete, do they just kinda sit there and wait until the court is finished? And what if the first ones appointed term runs out befoer the court is completed, then did they just waist their time if the court is inactive? If it is decided that the coyrt must be staggard, then it cannot be for to long, I think.

Kman

[Togas]

Proposed language to be added to Amendment:

The Court consists of seven (7) Justices.

Upon ratification of this Amendment, the first members of The Court will be selected in the following mannor:

A Committee will be formed that includes all Ministers of Apolytonia who choose to participate, excluding the President. Within five (5) days that Committee must present to the citizens of Apolytonia five (5) nominees for Justices.

A Confirmation Election is to be held. If any nominee is not confirmed by a majority of the citizens of Apolytonia, the Committee is to replace that nominee with a new nominee, who is then to be confirmed by the same process.

Once five (5) are confirmed, the results of their Confirmation polls shall be used to determine their term of office: The two (2) with the greatest number of confirmation votes shall serve a two (2) month term of office, the three (3) remaining shall serve a one (1) month term.

The President is to choose two (2) nominees for Justices, who are to also be confirmed by a majority of the citizens of Apolytonia. The two (2) nominees that are confirmed are to serve a three (3) month term of office.

Upon the conclusion of any Justice's term of office, the President of Apolytonia may reappoint that Justice or appoint a new Justice. In either event, a majority of the citizens of Apolytonia must confirm the Justice. The term of office for any Justice appointed by the President is three (3) months.

END

Thoughts?

--Togas

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by 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.

I agree, and in general we shouldn't bogg the court down with too many rules and regulations. We should build it on a fram work that will allow them to improvise because we cannot forsee every possible problem. If we choose to regulate everything, what will happen if something comes up that the regulations don't cover? That is why they should improvision should be the overall theme of our court.

[Kramerman]

I pretty much like Togas write-up, though I don't think the appointment process needs to be so complicated. I'll agree to it however if this is what goes into the final bill that will be voted on to ratify into an ammendment.


Kman

EDIT: Well done, Togas

[jdjdjd]

The poll on number of justices is already answered at 5, I think it was an official poll, so seven is out.

I htink still that justices should have unlimited terms, this was never polled on, the original poll dealt with number of terms not length of term...I'd like to see the results of that. In any event, no reason while whole court can't turn over at once, so long as the threads are there with case decisions.

And as Spiffor, I think, mentioned...this court is not going to have a huge over flowing docket, so any transition should work out rather smoothly.

I think we need to concentate on getting polls posted for the various topics disputed and unpolled...and then get an amendment in place, that is flexible and able to grow, change, adapt as needed.

This matter is disputed and disputed, and in many threads. We all are not going to be happy in all cases on this court, so we have to get past that and come to some compromise and get the court set up. Sometimes is seems like were a roomfull of lawyers getting paid by the hour.....just going round and round and round, and billing billlin billing.

Anyway...back to my adventures.

[Moral Hazard]

jdjdjd:
The number of judges poll was unofficial as stated by Trip when he ran it.

Unofficial (I'm going to compile all the results from the polls and combine them into an official amendment).

4 Days.

This isn't official, so just read the question, and it'll be obvious, I don't feel like explaining.

Concerning other issues I like both of things Togas has written haven't had a chance to review jdjdjd's propasal will soon.

[Togas]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
The poll on number of justices is already answered at 5, I think it was an official poll, so seven is out.

I checked it out. The poll was unofficial. Only 38 people voted in it anyhow. I doubt the populace is going to rebel and vote against this amendment if it has two additional justices.

IMO, Five is fine. Seven would also be fine. The Court won't be so busy that it needs more members, but it will make it easier to get a three member quarum for any emergency issue that arises.

But Jd has a point, we need to wrap up this thread, make any final polls, and get an official version of this before the people.

Does anyone feel that there is still a signifigant issue that needs to be argued? What is left that needs to be polled?

--Togas

[Moral Hazard]

Matters to be polled before ammendment:
Confirmation proceedings (ministers vs. the people)
A change in impeachment (but I seem to be the only person against it)
3 month term vs. life.
type of majority needed for decisions.

That's all I can think of at present.

I agree that the ammendment should be put up for vote soon.

[jdjdjd]

My apologies to Togas et als, 5 is unofficial.....

Captain did a summary earlier on this thread, it could be a place to start. Togas did a proposal, as did I (mine was in progress when togas posted....so similar on many issues). There is also the original by Trip. I listed 10 issues I think we need to deal with now, and I reiterate let the court deal with other set up matters.

Moral, glad to see you up and about.

[Kuciwalker]

First, I don't think we need the 5 (five) type things. Please stop that.

Second, I think we should have every official except the President choose the Justices. Take a little power away from the Presidency, and have seven justices to boot.

[Jon Shafer]

I've looked over the amendment re-written by Togas, and I've changed a few things again. I've tried to compensate for what everyone wants... hopefully this will work.

And sorry for not responding to everyone abou this matter, I've been exceptionally busy as of late.

This amendment hereby creates an official Apolytonian Court (hereafter refered to as "The Court")

The Court is constituted to rule upon: contested disputes involving legal interpretation, validity of polls, violations of the Constitution, impeachment, or any other legal dispute of national importance.

The Court is composed of Five Justices. Each Justice is to be appointed by the President, and each must be approved by a majority of the populace in an Approval Vote.

The Court is to decide among itself a 'Senior Justice', who will be respondible for ensuring that a report is published for each decision that communicates the rationale behind the decision made, and presiding over any hearings before The Court.

A quorum of at least 3 Justices must be involved in any ruling that is made. Should The Court be tied about how to rule on an issue, the Senior Justice is to decide the result of the issue.

All rulings are immediately official and final. The same issue can only be brought back to The Court with 75% of the Justices agreeing to rehear the matter. All decisions must take place in real-time, as The Court cannot halt the game to make a decision without a 2/3 vote amongst the people.

The Court cannot act on any issue until a non-judicial citizen of the nation brings forth an Issue to The Court.

Issues to The Court should be posted publically and must involve a dispute that The Court is empowered to rule upon.

The court may impeach an official with a 75% vote within the court, and a 50% plus 1 vote amongst the people, but only after a Call for Impeachment has been made by a citizen of the nation.

A Justice may not serve in any other governmental post. Each Justice serves a term of two months in length. At the end of that term the Justice may be reappointed by the President. The President may be bypassed in this process if 75% of the populuce re-approve the Justice in a vote. There is no limit to the number of terms a Justice may serve. A Justice may be removed from his office by a 50% plus 1 vote amongst the officials and a 2/3 vote amongst the people.

Please respond only to things you would like changed, and how you would like them changed. This issue is getting terribly bloated, and we need to start getting to the point.

[Kramerman]

I think this is great! However, I would still like 7 justices. Also, why is it that only a quorum of 3 justices is needed to resolve an issue and not the entire court instead? If we are going to have 5 or 7 Justices, why wouldn't we use them? Other than these things I am happy with this bill. And even if nobody wants to include my ideas I'll probably still vote to ratify it.

Kman

[Sirotnikov]

I'm tired:



1 - appointed by minister of justice
2 - a limited, long, non consecutive term is best.
3 - they should be able to order a halt to a game for a period they need to investigate.
4 -
5 - 51%
6 - option B yet not retroactive
7 - only for the length of the appeal
8 - no
9 - nope



minister of justice -
responsible for aiding the government in matters regarding democracy and law, and if need be, representing it in court whether in defense or prosecution
responsible for giving his advice and interpertation of the constitution to the government, in consideration of the interests of the people
responsible to discuss freely issues with judges, get their opinion and advise to the government accordingly, so that the court can be consulted without making an official trial
responsible to give advice to vice president about polls wording and legality
responsible to appoint judges together with the president


sorry for being short
but
1. it's 5 am
2. it's really hot here
3. i'm tired

[Timeline]

Well, I started trying to put together something to try to incorperate all the suggestions here, and make them into a consitution format like Togos. What happened is I started formulating my own ideas.

Eventually I gave up, because I too far behind on what is being discussed here to catch up lol. Here is what I came up with, feel free to use any of it.


Apolytonian Court:

The Apolytonian Court reservoir contains 7 judges whose general purpose is to define pre-existing law, preside over all official polls, and hold hearings on cases brought against the government. Rulings by this court are considered judicial law, and must be upheld.

Judicial Appointment

Judges are appointed by the President of Apolytonia, but must first be approved by over 50% of the people before they may take their position.

An appointed Judge is granted the right to serve in his position for at least two months. After this time the President decides if the judge should be replaced, and if so, which member will replace him.

During confirmation polls of Judicial appointment, it must be stated which Judge the candidate is intended to replace. If 51% confirmation is failed to be obtained, the current Judge continues his/her service.

Judicial Removal

Should the need arise to remove a Judge before his 2 month period of service is over, a Judge may be removed by the following means.

Unanimous agreement by all Ministers, the President, and Vice President. And a 51% or more agreement among the people.

Rulings that the removed Judge may have participated in, stay in effect and still hold judicial wieght unless appealed.

Judicial Powers

An Apolytonian court has the power to hold hearings on any poll (open or closed) and rule it invalid. In such a case, any action as a result of the poll is to be reversed.

The Court has the power to impose an injunction on any currently open poll, in order to hold hearings on its validity if they so wish.

- at this point I gave up. If you think it is good thus far then please tell me and I will resume work on it. If you think this is unneeded and redundant, then please tell me that too , and I will know I did the right thing by giving up.

Oh yeah: I was also planning on going into an "appeals" court, made up of 3 of the 7 judges. They would rule on appeals and such obviously

That's the reason I put 7 judges in there.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Kramerman
I think this is great! However, I would still like 7 justices. Also, why is it that only a quorum of 3 justices is needed to resolve an issue and not the entire court instead? If we are going to have 5 or 7 Justices, why wouldn't we use them? Other than these things I am happy with this bill. And even if nobody wants to include my ideas I'll probably still vote to ratify it.

There was already a vote that was so 1-sided towards 5 justices it was almost unreal. 70 or 80% for it I believe. While yes, it's unofficial, those numbers still quite telling.

The reason a quorum of 3 is necassary for every decision is because real life will intervene. A few weeks ago Linney had to take over for me during the turnchats since I was on vacation. It's reasonable that in 2+ month terms, at least for one case there will be at least one justice missing.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Trip

There was already a vote that was so 1-sided towards 5 justices it was almost unreal. 70 or 80% for it I believe. While yes, it's unofficial, those numbers still quite telling.

The reason a quorum of 3 is necassary for every decision is because real life will intervene. A few weeks ago Linney had to take over for me during the turnchats since I was on vacation. It's reasonable that in 2+ month terms, at least for one case there will be at least one justice missing.

Well then, all is good enough for me, though timeline had a few things that might be added that I liked, such as Judicial removal.

Kman

[Kramerman]

btw, it was noble of you to step down. Much of the heated debate has since stopped since your announcement and I can feel sanity slowley leaching back into the veins of Apolytonia. Anyway, that was good of you, though the election poll hasn't closed yet not at least the last time I looked, and at any rate it was still real close and you do still have a shot

Kman