We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Judicial Establishment
Details
Submitted by[?]: Christian Democrats
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: March 2454
Description[?]:
| "Article 8: The Judiciary The judicial authority shall be vested in a system of courts, both lower and constitutional. These courts shall have absolute power to ensure enforcement of the laws and constitution of the Grand Duchy of Keymon." -- Constitution of Keymon "Keymon has courts, but the judiciary has never been clearly defined except as an ad-hoc body created as a subcommitee of the Assembly. We propose a high court with all powers granted by the constitution, with membership to be of up to five justices appointed by the Grand Duke in consultation with the cabinet and approved by the Assembly, to serve life terms. In practice, this means the Head of Government may nominate any person to become a justice when a vacancy emerges, and that person must be approved by the Assembly. After twenty years, the seat will be presumed vacant and filled again. To prevent a court wipe-out, the initial court will have members with staggered terms, with one justice to be nominated by each of Keymon's three largest parties, one by the Head of Government, and one by the Assembly at large. The court shall have the power to place a hold on unconstitutional legislation and to rule on the constitutionality thereof, thus preventing a majority from making sweeping and chaotic changes." -- Lain Keymon * Game terms: Justices nominated from certain parties will be controlled by those parties. Justices from parties that do not exist any longer will be presumed to vote for legislation in accordance with that party's most recent stances. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:27:45, July 12, 2007 CET | From | Christian Democrats | To | Debating the Judicial Establishment |
| Message | Game terms: It's hard to create life appointments when it's not clear how long a person will live without making things up, so I figure it's easiest just to say 20 year appointments and pretend its for life. The problem then is that our initial court will get wiped out in 20 years, all dying at once, so the five justices we start with would have to have different tenures to simulate different ages. 25, 20, 15, 10, and 5 for the five justices would be good. That means we appoint a new justice every five years, guaranteeing that a government could appoint a justice friendly to its views - maybe two. Alternatively, if a justice comes up for renewal and you don't want them to "die" yet for RP purposes, you could just renominate them and approve them. We'd keep a thread open documenting who the current justices are, how old they are, and when their seat will vacate due to "death". How's this sound? |
| Date | 23:53:10, July 12, 2007 CET | From | The Liberty Organization | To | Debating the Judicial Establishment |
| Message | OOC: intriguing, what sort of power would they have? Could they declare laws unconstitutional? Would the legislature have to abide by their decisions? How would issues escalate to them? |
| Date | 00:06:53, July 13, 2007 CET | From | Christian Democrats | To | Debating the Judicial Establishment |
| Message | OOC: I'd say they could declare a law unconstitutional, which means we could have a law on the books that isn't enforced or has been overturned by the courts but remains on the books. I guess the legislature could pass a resolution clarifying the law or saying they want it to still be in force if that happens. At that point, the law could be challenged a second time or the matter could be let go. I'd say any party could lodge a protest with the court and any one justice could agree to put a stay on a law while it is considered. |
| Date | 17:00:32, July 19, 2007 CET | From | Christian Democrats | To | Debating the Judicial Establishment |
| Message | OOC: Is this something other parties are interested in doing? If it is, I'll finish the writeup and we can start appointing justices. :) |
| Date | 21:38:56, August 08, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Republican Party | To | Debating the Judicial Establishment |
| Message | OOC: I think this is very interesting and a really good idea. I'd love to see that implemented. |
| Date | 19:09:18, September 10, 2007 CET | From | Christian Democrats | To | Debating the Judicial Establishment |
| Message | "We are moving this to a vote. Once passed, we will begin proposing justices and soliciting proposals from all mentioned parties." -- Kenner Giles |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 104 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Jezvraljogadsrlji" means "Social" in the Jelbic languages. |
| Random quote: "We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together, and if we are to live together we have to talk." - Eleanor Roosevelt |