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: Question about Head Magistrate's Scope
Details
Submitted by[?]: Wessex High Imperial Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: August 2492
Description[?]:
| OOC: Ok, I know I have been the one pushing the High Court idea (which I still think we should do), but I have a question that affects the executive powers of the Chancellor of Justice which, in future cabinets, may very well not be the UUP so this isn't about me: On the executive function page, it says clearly that the Chancellor of Justice has the authority to "manage courts/manage prisons". My question is, shouldn't this, then, translate into the Chancellor being the Head Magistrate of the High Court? Or am I mistaken in not seeing a distinction here. Perhaps the Chancellor of Justice, whoever it is, should ALWAYS have a seat (one of five) on the High Court, and always be the Head Magistrate . . . this way, we won't have to wait forever for elections like the one we are in now, and there will be ratification by way of the parliament into the position of Head Magistrate. You know what all, the more I think about this, I believe we should do it this way. I elect to remove Magistrate Weist from the High Court and replace her with Chancellor di Venicci and thereby allow Chancellor di Venicci to fulfill her function as manager of the court system in Pontesi. I also move to amend the High Court document to reflect that one of the five magistrates on the High Court will always be the Chancellor of Justice (and will change from Chancellor to Chancellor when there is a new cabinet installed), and that the Chancellor of Justice also be the Head Magistrate. This seems easier, more efficient and more sensible to me, so if you are in favor of these changes, please vote yes on this bill, or vote no and tell me a better system. Thank you! |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:14:34, November 26, 2007 CET | From | Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Question about Head Magistrate's Scope |
| Message | It is my understanding that the managmenet referred to is more in the areas of funding and staffing. The Chancellor of Justice performs these tasks as an MP and as the primary nominator of candidates for the court. Having the Head Magistrate of the Court be a member of the executive cabinet and the legislative Parliament would not only give one person too much power, it would also understandably overwhelm that person. One can only wear so many hats at one time. I will vote against this proposal as I believe it threatens the independence of a non-elected judiciary. |
| Date | 02:14:06, November 27, 2007 CET | From | Wessex High Imperial Party | To | Debating the Question about Head Magistrate's Scope |
| Message | I'm not wedded to the idea of the Chancellor of Justice being the Head Magistrate, but if parliament votes no on this current idea, then we need a system in place to determine the Head Magistrate when there is a tie within the High Court, which is our current dilemma: we have two votes in for Culver, and two votes in for McKoy, and one in for Sewall. It wouldn't really seem fair to me to force the magistrate who voted for Sewall to revote. Who should determine who is Head Magistrate in the event of such a tie? I understand that, in the current situation, it would be easy to ask the magistrate who voted for Sewall to change his vote to one of the other two candidates--but is that the best way to do it? Perhaps the Atabeg or the Head of Government, then, should decide in case of a tie? I'm running into some technical dilemmas here that I didn't foresee, so we need to figure out what to do: my suggestion of having the Chancellor of Justice always function as Head Magistrate would eliminate the need to elect the Head Magistrate, but I do see and actually agree with the SDP's point in not allowing any one person to have too much authority. So, suggestions on breaking the tie if parliament votes no on this bill? |
| Date | 06:34:35, November 27, 2007 CET | From | Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Question about Head Magistrate's Scope |
| Message | One possibility is for the Atabeg to nominate a member of the court as Head Magistrate for approval by Parliament. In the current situation the Atabeg would choose from a current member of the court. In the future when the Head Magistrate post becomes vacant the Atabeg could choose to either designate the newest nominee for the vacant court position as Head Magistrate or to separately nominate a sitting Magistrate for the position. Again for approval by parliament. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 85 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 139 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 401 |
| Random fact: There are two countries based on Egypt in the game. Cobura is based on modern Egypt with a retro twist, while Hawu Mumenhes is based on Ancient Egypt with a modernist twist. |
| Random quote: "If the Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows." - Louis Mountbatten |