Amendment II - Court Idea Compilation Mk. II - Page 3

wervdon · July 16, 2002, 23:25

Most of what you have looks good to me trip, except the following:

1) If we only have 5 justices, then they shouldn't be able to decide anything without at least 3 out of the 5 voting to do something.

2) I liked impeachment like it was in the constitution originally. There's no need to drag the court into it. Other than I see no reason a member of the court can't start the call for impeachment as such is his constitutional right as a citizen.

3) You say that the court can't rule on anything until a citizen brings it to it. I assume then that in that regard the citizens who happen to also be justices can't be who brings it to the court

EDIT: Sorry read your first post in full Trip and see thats what you had in mind. Just be sure its in the actual wording of the ammendment that makes it into our constitution.

The rest looks good to me.

Jon Shafer · July 16, 2002, 23:34

1)

Quote:

A quorum of at least 3 Justices must be involved in any ruling that is made.

Got ya covered.

2) It was voted upon unofficially hafl that the court should be able to impeach, half that it shouldn't. Therefore, I compromised and made it so that the Court has some say, but not all. So this is an issue already decided upon, I believe.

3) Good point. I hate lawyers and their tricky language.

I'll change it to read "all non-judicial members".

wervdon · July 16, 2002, 23:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
2) It was voted upon unofficially hafl that the court should be able to impeach, half that it shouldn't. Therefore, I compromised and made it so that the Court has some say, but not all. So this is an issue already decided upon, I believe.

Heh I missed that poll, oh well

Its not big of an issue, because I dont see us impeaching anyone anyways unless they stop showing up or something.

Kramerman · July 16, 2002, 23:56

Hey, anything can happen, I think the Presidential election has shown us that.

Aggie · July 16, 2002, 23:59

Just a few (minor changes) I would propose.

Currently;
The court may impeach a minister 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)change minister to elected officials, unless the intent was not to have the president included
b)change 50%+1 to 60%
this is my last plea for this change, but in light of our recent voting problems I think it needed to be repeated.

A very minor and cosmetic change
A Justice may be removed from his office by a 50% plus 1 vote amongst the ministers and a 2/3 vote amongst the people.

Change 50%+1 to majority. This will save room in the document and say the same thing.

Even without these changes I will still vote for it, but I humbly suggest them. Also I suggest this is a good way to end your term. So propose this before you leave office.
Aggie

Kramerman · July 17, 2002, 00:12

Quote:

b)change 50%+1 to 60%

Quote:

this is my last plea for this change, but in light of our recent voting problems I think it needed to be repeated.

The 50% +1 majority vote (as apposed the plurality vote currently used in the election process) I believe is a great fix to our former situation with the Presidentual election.

A little nit picky change would be to define "majority" vote somewhere in the bill as "more than 50%" (due to 50%+1 can be ment to be interpreted as 51%, and a true majority vote could be as little as 50.000001%, to avoid future problems with close elections) and intsead of kepp saying "more than 50%" throughout the whole document, just say majority vote.

Kman

Jon Shafer · July 17, 2002, 00:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
a)change minister to elected officials, unless the intent was not to have the president included

Woops, I guess I missed that. I changed my wording in all my documents, but I suppose Togas overlooked that.

Quote:

b)change 50%+1 to 60%

I think most people are comfortable with majority, rather than 60%. Any particular reason for 60?

Quote:

this is my last plea for this change, but in light of our recent voting problems I think it needed to be repeated.

Nit-picking makes a superior document when under scrutiny later.

Quote:

A very minor and cosmetic change
A Justice may be removed from his office by a 50% plus 1 vote amongst the ministers and a 2/3 vote amongst the people.

Change 50%+1 to majority. This will save room in the document and say the same thing.

Awww, come on, don't you think that "50% plus 1" sounds more official and important?

Quote:

Even without these changes I will still vote for it, but I humbly suggest them. Also I suggest this is a good way to end your term. So propose this before you leave office.
Aggie

Any and all suggestions are welcome, no matter how small.

Ninot · July 17, 2002, 00:35

Quote:

b)change 50%+1 to 60%

i know where I am from, if a candidate wins with 60% of the votes, THAT is a blow out

if anything, change it to something in the low 50% range.. but the way Trip and I were at.. a vote was less than half a perctange point...

so if ya said, say 52%.. that can be as many as 5-6 votes if ya get the same turnout we got.

Aggie · July 17, 2002, 00:39

Since you asked I'll answer why 60% instead of 50%+1.
The answer is twofold and short
1) To make it harder to happen, similar to how the house votes to impeach with majority, but the senate neds 2/3 to convict. Though our proposal is similar, just reversed.
2) Since there were a significant # of people that were against the court ruling in impeachment under any circumstances, this might bring enough of them on board to get the 2/3 necessary to pass.

So basically a philosophical answer and a politcal answer

I'm know by those around me as a pragmatist, so the second part came from that part of me. I still think it will pass even without the changes, I just wanted to stack the odds in our favor.
Aggie

Kramerman · July 17, 2002, 00:46

OK, I wrote this poorly, so see if you can understand what I'm saying:

In the recent Pres election race you had only 2 candidates running. What I mean is if their was a third party, even if he got just a handful of votes of the almost 150 votes so far cast in the election, then he steals a percentage that could lead to no candidates getting a majority vote (In other words, no buddy gets more than 50 % and then there has to be a tie breaker of sorts, I'm not sure how thats handled). The higher you make the percentage necessary to win, i.e. 60%, the more likely no person would achieve that and things will get messier then thay need to be. Thats why I'm for a simple majority vote of more than 50%. When we have the residency requirements up and running, really close elections like this presidentual one won't be an issue because outsiders wont be able to screw around (screwing around in the non-sexual sense, of coarse

).

Kman

Aggie · July 17, 2002, 00:52

Kman, I was only talking about the impeachment procedings, not the actual election of the judges. Those do need to stay at 50%, I was trying to make it so that if there was an impeachment it would only succeed in the most exteme circumstances where a large super majority agreed to it, ie this would largely eliminate "political impeachments".
Aggie

Kramerman · July 17, 2002, 00:57

Ok. After rereading what you meant, I agree with you. Some one should only be inpeached if there is strong sentiment against him/her. But my above post was not written at you. I didn't see your above post, so you must have written it as I was writting mine. I was just making a suggestion on how the bill should be reworded

I still think however that 50% +1 should be reworded where ever a majority vote is wanted in this bill as "more than 50%" to allow for the very close elections were one dude would get 50.4% and another guy would get 49.6%. I think the first dude should win.

Kman

Togas · July 17, 2002, 01:06

Good rewrite. I have concerns about the text in bold...

Quote:

Amendment as 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 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.

I'm not quite sure why this was included. I can't forsee any decision so urgent that the court cannot take it into consideration, debate the proper result, and issue a ruling the next day, or day after. This language seems to force the Justices who are there at the very moment the issue is raised to come to a rushed decision because The Court cannot halt the game.

I'm fine with saying that The Court cannot halt the game, although I'd prefer some sort of limited injunction be allowed (like a 24 hour stay), BUT why not debate that matter further, poll it, and include it in a later amendment? It's not necessary right now.

I'm mostly unhappy with the idea that The Court is going to have to make decisions right now and not be able to step away from the partisan debate to discuss it amongst themselves to logically and thoughtfully produce a just result. Furthermore, why not leave issues of procedure like this to The Court to work out amongst themselves?

I'm done ranting.

Quote:

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 a minister 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.

Why not just majority vote?

Quote:

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 ministers and a 2/3 vote amongst the people.

Every other President is going to pick the court because all of their terms cease at the same time after two months. This President fills the court, the next one can't change it, the one after that gets to fill it all up again.

What's wrong with the staggering idea? Let every President leave his own legacy with The Court. Why are we sticking to a two month term? Why not a three month or, better yet, a five month term, staggered. Every President gets to pick 1 lasting Justice for the court.

I am also very partial to the idea of a committee picking the Justices, at least in the beginning. Is there any other support out there for this idea?

Also, why the Presidential bypass? I appreciate the check and balance, but if the President won't reappoint you, I can't see 75% of the people doing it. The President was popularly elected and carries with him a great deal of political clout and respect. I cannot imagine 75% of the people disagreeing with him about something like a Judicial appointment.

Ok. That's it. Otherwise O.K. with me.

--Togas

notyoueither · July 17, 2002, 01:19

That is looking good Trip.

I have not reviewed the entire thread, but I can support that.

Kramerman · July 17, 2002, 01:22

Quote:

I am also very partial to the idea of a committee picking the Justices, at least in the beginning. Is there any other support out there for this idea?

I prefer the president picking the justices just out of simplicity's sake. Though it does give more power to the president, I don't particularly mind, besides a "corrupt" president can still be overirdden by the citizenry not accepting the pres's choices for Justices.

Quote:

Why not just majority vote?

Majority vote would need to be defined somewher in the bill. It would certainly be easier thereaftyer to just say "majority vote". I am partial to my definition of more than 50% instead of 50%+1

Quote:

Also, why the Presidential bypass? I appreciate the check and balance, but if the President won't reappoint you, I can't see 75% of the people doing it. The President was popularly elected and carries with him a great deal of political clout and respect. I cannot imagine 75% of the people disagreeing with him about something like a Judicial appointment.

I see what you mean, but since we already have it, I say we should stick with it for checks and balances' sake. Besides, what if the President decides to appoint all of his poker buddies that aren't qualified for the job, or our little political system developes a "spoils system" where presidents would reward their unqualified supporters with judicial appointments.

notyoueither · July 17, 2002, 01:22

I suggest that 2 of the initial judges resign at the end of the first month to be renominated.

That would fix the term problem.

I would volunteer to serve 1 month, stand down and not accept a new appointment.

Ninot · July 17, 2002, 01:23

Quote:

I am also very partial to the idea of a committee picking the Justices, at least in the beginning. Is there any other support out there for this idea?

What, ya don't trust me to pick the first 5 justices

lol, ya, a comitee to pick 4 of the 5 would be good.. but how do we decide who is on the comitee?

Kramerman · July 17, 2002, 01:28

quote:

"I am also very partial to the idea of a committee picking the Justices, at least in the beginning. Is there any other support out there for this idea? "

I prefer the president picking the justices just out of simplicity's sake. Though it does give more power to the president, I don't particularly mind, besides a "corrupt" president can still be overirdden by the citizenry not accepting the pres's choices for Justices.

quote:

"Why not just majority vote? "

Majority vote would need to be defined somewher in the bill. It would certainly be easier thereaftyer to just say "majority vote". I am partial to my definition of more than 50% instead of 50%+1

quote:

"Also, why the Presidential bypass? I appreciate the check and balance, but if the President won't reappoint you, I can't see 75% of the people doing it. The President was popularly elected and carries with him a great deal of political clout and respect. I cannot imagine 75% of the people disagreeing with him about something like a Judicial appointment. "

I see what you mean, but since we already have it, I say we should stick with it for checks and balances' sake. Besides, what if the President decides to appoint all of his poker buddies that aren't qualified for the job, or our little political system developes a "spoils system" where presidents would reward their unqualified supporters with judicial appointments.

Kman

Ok, I just wanted to repost this so it doesn't get lost on the bottom of the last page.

Ninot, I trust you can pick 5 capable judges. And if you can't, well the citizenry can always shoot down your nominations and your reputation as an inept moron (just theoretical

) could hurt your reelection. That is why Im satisfied with Presidintial appointees and think the bill shpuld stay as is in that respect.

MrWhereItsAt · July 17, 2002, 02:40

Well done, Trip.. I am very happy with your amended amendment on the amendment......

I am happy with what you have written most recently here, including the small changes suggested afterwards. This is close to middle ground between all views that I have seen and I advise that, if you find this document acceptable (even if not PERFECTLY conforming to your views) then ACCEPT IT! This is a compromise and the priority now is to get this up and running within an acceptable framework, and to do so NOW.

wervdon · July 17, 2002, 03:06

Yeah, Id say stagger the terms out some too. Every president should get to nominate at least 1 justice during his term

The best solution like Notyoueither suggested would just have 2 of the judges agree before being nominated that their term will end with the next presidental election.

Jon Shafer · July 17, 2002, 05:03

Page 4, new thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=56034

jdjdjd · July 17, 2002, 08:41

This part I think I would object to,

"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. "

becuase in effect the Senior Justice could have two votes in a tie. Since there are five justices, should there be a tie in the case when four justices vote, then the remaining justice must vote. If in some fluke where someone abstains or has left the face of Apolytonia, then a split vote=equals a win for the defendant, or leaving the action or poll in place.

and then I need clarification....
"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. "

Is this after impeachment is passed?
"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."