Constitutional Law Review: Court Jurisdiction over enforcing site rules

H Tower · February 16, 2003, 23:10

It's time for my favorite past time, stretching the Constitution and finding loopholes. At this time I'd like to argue that the Court has power to enforce forum rules within the CtP2 DG forum.

Serious Students of the Constitution need only post
I want to actually have a serious debate instead of, "you're crazy" or answers like "no."

Here we go:

Alright, we'll start with the Bill of Rights.

Quote:

From the CON Article I 3. Freedom of speech and the right to associate into any form of organization shall not be denied unless it violates Apolyton rules.

Ok, I'm not interested in the part about "the right to associate into any form of organization." I want to talk about Freedom of Speech.

It says no one is to be denied freedom of speech unless they break site rules, but what happens if someone does break site rules? From the way it is worded, I think that this line gives the Court the power to remove freedom of speech. I say it is the Court who has the power, (in addition to the site moderators of course) because of Article III 1(a)

Quote:

From the CON The Court is constituted to rule upon: contested disputes involving legal interpretation, validity of polls and elections, violations of the Constitution, or any other legal dispute involving the game.

Which says the Court has the duty and priveldge of enforcing the CON.

The next thing to debate is what Constitutes freedom of speech and how can it be limited?

I'm going to skip the harder to answer freedom of speech question and begin with "how can it be limited?" Well, the court is given the power to punish people. I refer to Article III 4.(c) and (d)

Quote:

From the CON
(c) If the Court rules that the actions of certain Citizens are in violation with the Constitution or other rules of Lemuria, it may hand out punishments to these Citizens if it deems this appropriate. The Court will determine for itself what kind of punishment is applied, the punishment must fit the crime. However, no punishments may permanently affect a Citizens participation in the Democracy Game, the Court may not dismiss active members of government (although it may start up impeachment procedures as described in Article V) and the Court may not alter the Constitution (although it may start an Amendment poll, as described in Article IV Subsection 3-IV).

(d)Punishments the Court may hand out include but are not limited to: warnings, impeachment procedures, barring Citizens from specific or any government offices in future elections, banning Citizens from the Democracy Game, declaring resolutions void, closing threads or polls, deleting or editing posts or threads, declaring polls invalid. Punishments which require action from the CtP2-Democracy Game forum moderator must be approved by this moderator, who shall offer an explanation to the Court if approval is not given.

Part (c) says the court can hand out punishments that are appropriate. And part (d) lists several punishments the court is entitled to inflict upon a guilty party, although it does allow for other punishments ("Punishments the Court may hand out include but are not limited to")

So for a case of spamming, a possible punishment would be the citizen being unable to make more than 5 posts per day for a month unless special permission is given by the court for say, a contested election in which the citizen needs to campaign. Probation if you will. Of course more severe punishment would be in order if the guilty citizen breaks the 5 posts per day limit within the DG forum.

For posting insults, flaming, insults, or hatred I would lean towards a forum ban, being unable to post for a while within the forum. Other punishments could be being unable to run for office or having locutus delete the posts.

Now of course the forum moderators can over rule the court on punishents that require action by the mods, so the rulings will have to be fair or they will be ignored by the mods. and will become moot.

Back to the question of Freedom of Speech now. Quite simply, freedom of speech for the game is the ability to post whatever you want, (as long as it isn't flaming, insults, hatred) and as often as you like (as long as it isn't spamming)

/me eagerly awaits comments upon his interpretation of the Constitution

Frozzy · February 17, 2003, 00:04

The way it is worded is showing what you CAN do, not what you can't. The court should have the power to hand out punishments which involve breaking site rules REMOVED, and be handed over to the site moderators/owners (i.e. Ming, Markos, Dan and Loccy).

As per this:

Quote:

So for a case of spamming, a possible punishment would be the citizen being unable to make more than 5 posts per day for a month unless special permission is given by the court for say, a contested election in which the citizen needs to campaign. Probation if you will. Of course more severe punishment would be in order if the guilty citizen breaks the 5 posts per day limit within the DG forum.

For posting insults, flaming, insults, or hatred I would lean towards a forum ban, being unable to post for a while within the forum. Other punishments could be being unable to run for office or having locutus delete the posts.

Now of course the forum moderators can over rule the court on punishents that require action by the mods, so the rulings will have to be fair or they will be ignored by the mods. and will become moot.

What the CON is asking is absolutely stupid. The moderators have the power over ACS, not some mock court made for a game. Really, the court has no power and the "punishments" section should be dramatically altered or removed. It's taking up space, if you will

MrBaggins · February 17, 2003, 00:14

Well... theoretically, the court has the ability to prevent a citizen from running in an election, simply by not recognizing them, or removing them, and so on and so forth.

Yes... though... at some point, the 'teeth' of the rules need to come from site administration and not the court.

We do, I guess, need to think about what constitutes a problem that we'd want to have a punishment for.

Spam is, maybe, the most forseeable problem in a DG. However, in many ways... a definition for spam becomes tougher in a DG: voicing an opinion about a candidate... or an intention to vote or... any number of minute and numerous reasons, are on-topic, just as much as the serious task of policy descision making.

I feel, though, that posts about posts... or similar off-topic material could be curtailed by rules.

If we, as I hope we will, increase the amount of decision making polling, it would be nice to reduce the meaningless noise. (With the exception of the Cafe, of course

)

Having said all of this, the roleplay is fun.

MrBaggins

H Tower · February 17, 2003, 01:23

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Frozzy
The way it is worded is showing what you CAN do, not what you can't. The court should have the power to hand out punishments which involve breaking site rules REMOVED, and be handed over to the site moderators/owners (i.e. Ming, Markos, Dan and Loccy).
[quote]
Perhaps a rewording then? Because the power to punish clearly still resides with the the mods.

Quote:

What the CON is asking is absolutely stupid. The moderators have the power over ACS, not some mock court made for a game. Really, the court has no power and the "punishments" section should be dramatically altered or removed. It's taking up space, if you will

I don't know, I don't think it is that bad if you remove the site rules from the court's jurisdiction. Banning people from posting in the forum would be virtually impossible since no crime under the court's jurisdiction would have a banning as an appropriate punishment. I can only think of one: playing ahead, which should really be met with a punishment of a life time ban from the forum.

Mr. Baggins:

Quote:

Yes... though... at some point, the 'teeth' of the rules need to come from site administration and not the court.

Well the moderator does have a way of disobeying the court.
I quote part of Article II 4.(d)

Quote:

Punishments which require action from the CtP2-Democracy Game forum moderator must be approved by this moderator, who shall offer an explanation to the Court if approval is not given.

His explanation could be as simple as I don't like the punishment and have decided to not obey. And since I'm a mod and you're not, sod off

Can I draw the conclusion then that both of you agree with my interpretation since you are arguing its fallout instead of my reasoning?

Frozzy · February 17, 2003, 02:12

H Tower is right. If I was a mod, I could say "Nope... I like this guy, so I'm gonna let him off the hook. If you don't like it then **** off."

Either way, you guys can't do anything about it.

H Tower · February 17, 2003, 02:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Frozzy
H Tower is right. If I was a mod, I could say "Nope... I like this guy, so I'm gonna let him off the hook. If you don't like it then **** off."

Either way, you guys can't do anything about it.

I can dream can't I?

Gilgamensch · February 17, 2003, 06:52

Interresting that mainly us judges (or ex/soon-judges) are reading/posting here

I wouldn't like to get rid off it, there might be cases, where somebody is not violating the Apolyton's rules, but he might cause 'disturbance' for the DG. Let's say, for example, a civ3'er would come over just to spam or disagree or whatever. No I do not want to blame them for everything.

The court could ban him (OK, so long the mod agrees) from further messages/threads.

Frozzy:

No, we should leave it in, just as a 'reminder' for everyone.

But more important: The court in the moment can not react on it's own, only after being 'contacted'. This I would consider more of a point to change.

Pedrunn · February 17, 2003, 07:15

Can anyone show where the apolyton rules are? I cant find it!

Gilgamensch · February 17, 2003, 07:18

try this link to the FAQ

Pedrunn · February 17, 2003, 07:46

So in summary we are forbidden by apolyton to:

Code:

Post off-topic comments
Post insults, flames and hatred comments
Post spamming and advertisements
Create a second login
Behaviour which is considered distruptive to this site.
Explicit sexual discussion allowed
Doing anything after an Admin or Mod tells you not to do it.

And the CTP2DG constitution adds:

Code:

Forcing other people to vote (A-I.2)
Prevent people from expressing (A-I.3)
Citizen punishments if not by apolyton or the Court (A-I.4)
Permanent ban of citizens if not by apolyton (A-I.4)
Play Ahead (A-I.5)
Prevent people from candidating (A-II.1.b)
Governor hiding information (A-I.5 and A.II.1.h)
Governor absence from the forums for too long (A-II.1.f and A-II.1.g)
Govenor Disobey resolutions (A-II.1.i)
Governor doing a fuction it was not suppose to (A.II.2)
Invalid polls (A.IV)

Other than giving the people their rights. the rest of the constitution are the teaching of procedures for the court (elections, resignations, polling, court powers, etc...).
So i asumed the court doesnt make mistakes.

So the Court isnt that powerless after all!

Gilgamensch · February 17, 2003, 08:02

Quote:

So i asumed the court doesnt make mistakes.

How do you mean? Nobody is perfect, but decision have to be based on the connie.

Pedrunn · February 17, 2003, 08:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
How do you mean? Nobody is perfect, but decision have to be based on the connie.

I know!
After all Case001 does prove the the oppose and tamerlin due to this MoDA election says the same

.

I am just saying that the Court is difficult to make rules like those listed. Since its mistake are created by minor errors in its procedures (elections, resignations, case filing, punishing, etc...).
I was trying to show the power of the court over the citizens in the list (thats what we are discussing here)

Gilgamensch · February 17, 2003, 08:38

that is always the problem........

Little 'errors' in the draft can leave big loopwholes in the end.

The court can only rule open cases opened, but not activly on it's own. I would like too see some complaints/cases. I could see problems with withholding information and couple of other things, but nobody seems to bother. I can't do anything (as long as I am judge), THAT would be a point I would like to change.

But taking this power (mentioned above) away from the court, could 'hurt' us a lot more. When we were constructing the connie, I wanted to have it in, just in case. You never know, what can happen........I am actually thinking of using part of it. Like in the election-poll. That was way above the limit. If users have a problem, they should file a case and that's it. They shouldn't

in something like this..........

Locutus · February 17, 2003, 10:36

Quote:

unless it violates Apolyton rules.

I think this is the key. Whether or not someone violates Apolyton rules can only be determined by the Apolyton staff. Spam and flames are in the eye of the beholder, so you need an authority (i.e. a mod) to determine what is and what isn't. The Court and other people here can think whatever they want, but as long as a mod doesn't agree that the rules of Apolyton are being violated (to a sufficient extend to warrent punishment), they aren't. So without a mod's consent, the Court can't convict anyone for spamming or flaming, let alone punish him for it.

The Court has the right to rule over the material covered in the Constitution. While this doesn't include the rules of Apolyton (see above), it does include things like people playing ahead, people posting in threads where Government Officials (with 'the right to make rules as they see fit') specifically asked them not to, presidents deliberately ignoring orders, ministers ignoring resolutions, etc... The Court does have the right to rule over these things and to hand out whatever punishment it sees fit.

Of course, if this punishment requires action by a mod but doesn't have his consent, it's simply not gonna happen. So one could argue that this makes the ruling of the Court meaningless because basically the mod is in charge and not the Court. However, MarkG made clear in the C3DG as well as (to a lesser extend) in the CtP1DG that he takes any decision from the Court and the People very seriously. As CtP2DG mod, I will do the same here (and in the CtP1DG too, if I continue to be a mod there). If a ruling by the Court is reasonable and well thought-out, I will carry it out (or ask MarkG or Ming to carry it out, since I'm far from omnipotent myself

).

MrBaggins · February 17, 2003, 10:46

So perhaps we should have one extra position in our DG: a composite policeman/detective AND queens council/district attorney, who's job it was to see that the DG game laws be obeyed, and to raise issues to the court. The individual should be elected by consent of the judges and not the general citizenry.

Thus, the legal system would be proactive.

On another matter. We should get a personal resolution from a moderator that he would enforce the will of the court, should it be so necessary to do so, regardless of personal feeling, with the exception of severity, to which, they have some discretion in.

Gilgamensch · February 17, 2003, 10:52

And I think, as we are trying to be reasonable and not a lot of flame going on (unlike other forums

), I don't really expect that you will have a lot of work with us

But, there directly a question:

As you might have seen the posting in the election-poll: If the court would ask you, too take some actions there, what would be your response? Don't want to say, it is needed, but for me, it is close too the limit..............

Tamerlin · February 17, 2003, 13:46

Your points are very interesting H Tower. I have already expressed elsewhere that I am a bit disappointed by the lack of commitment of many citizens and by the weakness of the arguments that are exposed in the DG forum. I can't agree more on the insults, flaming, etc., issue. There is no place for them here and elsewhere in Apolyton as a whole.

About the weakness of some arguments I can only say that we are already confronted every day with this problem in real life and that though we should encourage the DG posters to develop their arguments some can't or don't want. They should nonetheless remain free to express their opinion, be it simply "no, I don't like that", as they are known citizens of the community and their opinion can thus be important for other members of the DG. We are free to ask a member to develop its argumentation.

Spamming is even more difficult to treat. As long as it is good spirited and limited (which means it does not disrupt a thread to the point it becomes a spamming area) the rules should not be too strictly enforced. The DG is after all a game and we play it because we want to have fun. IMO, the success of the DG must not be evaluated in term of victory against the AI (though it must be our goal) but in term of the fun we have playing it. I might be wrong but part of the fun is also to joke (as long as it is good natured) with people we like even if it is sometimes off-topic.

The word Moderator is itself interesting to analyse, it comes from the verb "To Moderate" which implies the Moderator should only act when things are going too far. IMO, spams should not be punished as long as they are within given limits and are limited in number. The Moderator and the Judge decide in this matter.

In my opinion, a strict enforcement of the rule is thus dangerous as far as spams are concerned and a poster should never be courted before he has been warned by the judge that he should stop spamming or that he is pushing the limit too far.

About Apolyton CS rules and the CtP2 DG rules I see them as the European Community Law and the National Law of each Member Country:
The EC Law (Apolyton CS rules) takes precedence over the National Laws of its members (the various DG rules) and the National Laws (DG rules) can not contradict the EC Law (ACS rules).

As a representant of the ACS, Locutus is in charge of enforcing the ACS rules (like a European Judge) and the CtP2 DG Judge is in charge of enforcing the CtP2 DG rules (like a National Judge).

About the Court himself, I think the Lemurian court should actually be made of three judges which would have to give their opinion on every case submitted (no possibility to abstain). The elected Judge would be the President of the Court and would be asked to nominate two other judges that would have to accept personnally (

) the position in order to be appointed for the duration of the running term. The President of the Court would have the possibility to revoke a Judge through a motivated public announcement.
IMO, three Judges would allow for a better interpretation of the law as it would guarantee the issue would be debated and settled by several DG members with possibly different opinions.

H Tower · February 17, 2003, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Tamerlin
About the weakness of some argument I can only say that we are already confronted every day with this problem in real life and that though we should encourage the DG posters to develop their arguments some can't or don't want. They should nonetheless remain free to express their opinion, be it simply "no, I don't like that", as they are known citizens of the community and their opinion can thus be important for other members of the DG. We are free to ask a member to develop its argumentation.

I wanted to avoid spamming of this thread, and while i can't force people to not post one line answers, I can still encourage them to develop their arguement.

Quote:

Spamming is even more difficult to treat. As long as it is good spirited and limited (which means it does not disrupt a thread to the point it becomes a spamming area) the rules should not be too strictly enforced.

I agree completely, the court punishment was mearly a theoretical example of what could be done with my interpretation of the parts of the CON I quoted in my first post. However I do feel that some members of this game have reached a point where the should be prosecuted for spamming because it is very much so out of hand.

Quote:

IMO, the success of the DG must not be evaluated in term of victory against the AI (though it must be our goal) but in term of the fun we have playing it. I might be wrong but part of the fun is also to joke (as long as it is good natured) with people we like even if it is sometimes off-topic.

i really suprised no one has quoted in their sig, but i have gone on record in the past that I couldn't care less how well we do in the game as long as I can have fun roleplaying and participating actively in the court and constitutional discussion. (like this one

)

[quote]About the Court himself, I think the Lemurian court should actually be made of three judges which would have to give their opinion on every case submitted (no possibility to abstain).
[quote]
The court is made up of 3 judges, Gilg as Senior Justice, Frozzy who is entering his second month in office and mapfi who is about to finish out his term and be replaced by yours truly unless 14 people vote no before the election ends.

[quote] The elected Judge would be the President of the Court and would be asked to nominate two other judges that would have to accept personnally (

) the position in order to be appointed for the duration of the running term. The President of the Court would have the possibility to revoke a Judge through a motivated public announcement.
[quote]
I like our current system of judge selection better as it is more democratic and less likely to end up with political parties appointing each other to judge positions.

Quote:

IMO, three Judges would allow for a better interpretation of the law as it would guarantee the issue would be debated and settled by several DG members with possibly different opinions.

As I've mentioned above, the court does have 3 judges. If mapfi agrees, I can post a log of all of our private debates over interpreting cases and the CON. But it will take more than 10 posts to their maximum size limit. In fact we were debating the very topic I raised in this thread but we were deadlocked disagreeing which is why I opened this thread since it doesn't involve an actual case like our usual debates do. Deliberations of the court are done behind closed doors via pm's and instant messenger.

Speaking of mapfi, where is he? I want to see him tear my arguements apart so we can find the loopholes.

Locutus

Quote:

If a ruling by the Court is reasonable and well thought-out, I will carry it out

What do you mean IF???

Locutus · February 17, 2003, 14:44

I do agree that we need a pro-active Court: the Judges are usually those posters who care most of enforcing the rules but they are at the same time not allowed to file cases. As mod I've had a lot of contact with the Judges so I know most of them are very frustrated by the fact they have to sit by as a lot of good potential cases don't make it to the Courtroom. Either we need to give the Judges permission to file cases themselves or we should (let the Court) appoint someone who actively pursues cases (like a DA/cop).

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
On another matter. We should get a personal resolution from a moderator that he would enforce the will of the court, should it be so necessary to do so, regardless of personal feeling, with the exception of severity, to which, they have some discretion in.

When you're a mod you're always in a position where you're dealing with both personal feelings and the knowledge of what's best for the site/community. These things conflict all the time. Ming has banned/PCRed personal friends plenty of times and I myself have had to face my share of dilemmas as well (though fortunately not as publicly as Ming).

You're not appointed a mod if the owners of this site feel you won't be able to handle the responsibility. (In fact, though I don't know the details and could be wrong, I think several people who couldn't handle this have been 'fired' over this in the past.) So although I understand where you're coming from, I don't feel it's really necessary for me (or any other mod for that matter) to account for myself towards you guys. If you feel I don't do my job right, you can always take it up with Markos or Dan (in fact, I would encourage you to do so - provided you discuss the issue with me first).

Gilg,
Clean your PM box!

Locutus · February 17, 2003, 14:52

Quote:

Locutus
What do you mean IF???

I don't trust you Court-lot one minute!

Tamerlin · February 17, 2003, 14:59

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
I agree completely, the court punishment was mearly a theoretical example of what could be done with my interpretation of the parts of the CON I quoted in my first post. However I do feel that some members of this game have reached a point where the should be prosecuted for spamming because it is very much so out of hand.

If you warn them and if they don't stop in spite of your requests our constitution gives you the right to act against them, there is no problem as far as I am concerned. Being a Judge is not an easy job and acting against spams is even more tricky.

Quote:

As I've mentioned above, the court does have 3 judges. If mapfi agrees, I can post a log of all of our private debates over interpreting cases and the CON.

I think you should not. I was about to suggest in my previous post that the debates of the judges should not be public, it would lengthen the whole process and could end in petty quarrels between the DG members.

Quote:

Deliberations of the court are done behind closed doors via pm's and instant messenger.

And they should remain private IMHO.

mapfi · February 17, 2003, 15:21

I've already discussed HT's initial idea with him at length as he told you. I'm only going to give a quick summary of my opinion and I won't discuss this any further - there's a court case coming up.
I say, our constitution doesn't include the Apolyton rules, it only provides the needed phrases so that actions decided by ACS staff don't come into conflict with it. Therefore the court can't rule on spamming, threadjacking, whatever. That's the way it should be too in my opinion, the court is for the game, not for the site. ( a special case would be a DL to rig an election - there the court could rule)

The second discussion here that is going on here is about a proactive court. Though it is true that a few judges would have liked to file cases, including myself - I'm strongly opposing any change here. If a matter is not considered to be important enough to file a case by at least one non-juidicial citizen then it simply doesn't need to be decided. Do you want someone to follow you all day and each action you do that violates the law would be fined, punished? The whole world would be paying like crazy or sit in prison. In RL law specifically names all law violations that have to be prosecuted by the state even though nobody asks for it (e.g. like murder) but we don't need that. People, we're here to play a game and not to occupy us with jurisprudence. We made our law so we'd have guidelines on how to play and so noone could spoil the fun for us, but not in order to make it as important as the game itself.
Law is there to serve the community and not to serve itself!

H Tower · February 17, 2003, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Tamerlin

Quote:

originally posted by H Tower.
Deliberations of the court are done behind closed doors via pm's and instant messenger.

And they should remain private IMHO.

me too, maybe when i get back home i'll give the size of the file though. But just to spark a little debate, have you looked at Article I section 5?

Quote:

FROM the CON
The government may not knowingly hide information or give false information to the people. Therefore all citizens shall have access to the saved games. However, no Citizen shall ever 'play ahead'.

Couldn't that be taken to mean that the citizenry have a right to see the debate between the judges?

mapfi:

Quote:

I'm only going to give a quick summary of my opinion

But I was looking forward to continuing our debate!

Quote:

there's a court case coming up.

There is?

Quote:

Though it is true that a few judges would have liked to file cases

Judges themselves aren't allowed to file cases, true, but what about asking others to file for you?

Locutus:

Quote:

I don't trust you Court-lot one minute!

Good thing I'm not a member fo the court. I don't trust them either.

Tamerlin · February 17, 2003, 19:26

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
Me too, maybe when i get back home i'll give the size of the file though. But just to spark a little debate, have you looked at Article I section 5?

IMO the Court can not be considered a part of the government.

Furthermore, the interpretation of the text is limited by the following sentence: therefore all citizens shall have access to the saved games which would mean the informations that can not be hidden or false are related to the game as it is played through the chats. The log of each chat being published the government is fulfilling its obligations as far as this matter is concerned.

H Tower · February 18, 2003, 00:59

The CON mentions a very specific case of when information cannot be hidden, it doesn't say that other information can be hidden. otherwise turn chat logs would not have to be produced, just the save files.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 18, 2003, 02:59

judges aren't part of the government, at least not in any rl-democracy. if our con states otherwise, that really should be altered

Gilgamensch · February 18, 2003, 05:28

Locutus,

I cleaned my PM.

bacl to the topic:

The government is the 'law-giving' part of the state, whereas the court is the 'law-interpreting' part of the state and actually Locutus is our police, the execituve force

Therefore the court is not part of the government, so the discussion should be hold behind closed doors and not revealed to the public.

H Tower,

asking somebody to open the case is not the same. This person might not be of the same opinion as yourself, so in my eyes not a good idea. I still would like that judges are not restricted from filing cases (unless there would be a DA/cop, looking for violations).

And Mapfi,

Yes, the connie is there to serve the game, but having citizens 'breaking' the law and nothing the judge can do about, takes a lot of fun out of it (the DG and the roleplaying part).

It is not about giving the judges more to do, but that they/we could also act faster. Some citizens here sometimes don't care so much, but other's do. I am not saying that I am the best citizen (way not), but I try to stick to the rules. It would take at least 24 hours before anything could happen, maybe even longer. This I don't like so much.............

H Tower · February 18, 2003, 09:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
judges aren't part of the government, at least not in any rl-democracy.

How about the US?

We call it the system of checks and balances between the three branches of government. Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Do other people feel the same way?

MrBaggins · February 18, 2003, 09:16

The Anglo-Saxon system of law that evolved in England consisted of two greater jurisdictions.

Government law or the law of the King evolved from the Roman system. The common law or the law of the people was a unique system that probably evolved from church law. The history of the evolution can be found in Blackstones Commentaries. The two systems work together using the following legal principals:

1. Two different courts, judges, clerks, etc. existed.

2. The common law system used a specific writ for each type of litigation.

3. The writ to claim a right to a trial in a court of common pleas was a "Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum".

4. The writ was actually two separate legal actions.

5. The first writ was filed in the Kings superior courts.

6. The Kings court then transferred to common plea.

7. The second writ was filed in common plea.

The first writ filed in the Kings court evoked the police power of the central government for the following purposes:

1. To stop any other proceeding in a Kings court that violated the right to common law relief.

2. To used the police power of the Kings courts to enforce the common law judgment.

This dual jurisdiction system was brought to the American colonies by the English settlers.

The problem in the colonies was that the King of England suspended the Great Writ by either refusing to transfer or not enforcing the judgments issuing out of common plea. The suspension of this writ was the major cause of the war of revolution.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 18, 2003, 09:18

well, perhaps in english the word government has a slightly different meaning than the word "regierung" in german

to me the executive branch is the government. the legislative branch (parliament(s)) and the judicial (courts) branch aren't part of it. all three combined form the institutions of the state / the nation.