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: Appeal Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberty Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2611
Description[?]:
Article 1: Title
section 1: This shall be known as the Appeal Reform Act
section 2: The short form shall be known as the ARA
Article 2: Purpose
section 1: To allow for appeals of regional decisions to be made to the national courts |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's position towards the administration of law.
Old value:: There are regional courts that have jurisdiction over questions of regional law and national courts that have jurisdiction over questions of national law.
Current: There are regional courts that have jurisdiction over questions of regional law and national courts that have jurisdiction over questions of national law.
Proposed: There are regional courts, but decisions of regional courts may be appealed to national courts (if the right to appeal exists).
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:27:02, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | Uh...no? How about we let the various courts handle the matters that fall within their various jurisdictions. |
| Date | 06:31:02, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | How is this at all common sense? The laws of the tribes should be administered by tribal courts, that just makes sense. The laws of the nation should be administered by national courts, that also just makes sense. |
| Date | 06:33:43, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | You are aware that things can still be brought to our highest court right? I see that someone here does not realize that what effects one tribe, affects all. There are just some local issues that need to be brought to the national courts from the regional. Under current law, that cannot occur. With the proposed, they can. |
| Date | 06:38:16, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | If it's a national issue, then obviously it can go into the national courts - it says so right in the law. If it is not a national issue (for instance, recreational drug use, which local governments are authorised to regulate), then it makes no sense for the national courts to consider it. |
| Date | 06:41:46, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | And pray tell why it makes no sense? You apparently have no idea how a judicial system works with multiple styles of courts. |
| Date | 06:48:55, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | Hah, you realise the JUP is made up of a number of lawyers, legal academics and former judges, right? That's where the "Judicial Union" part of the name comes from. You're well outclassed here.
Different judges are trained in different things. Of course, judges can and do rule of issues in which they have not had extensive experience, but by and large, certain judges rule of certain types of cases. And this is right, of course. Judges in tribal courts will be experienced in particularly tribal issues, and so it stands to reason that we leave those cases to such judges. National judges are experienced in national law, and the same applies.
Furthermore, different parts of the nation have different legal systems. Cases in a particular area must be decided according to the custom of that area, and not the decisions of some people divorced from tradition.
There is absolutely no reason for issues that are purely local to be determined by a national court. Absolutely none. |
| Date | 06:51:51, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | "Hah, you realise the JUP is made up of a number of lawyers, legal academics and former judges, right? That's where the "Judicial Union" part of the name comes from. You're well outclassed here."
No wonder I am having troubles here. I am arguing against a party that is highly closed minded, unable to think for themselves, and who are in love with no one but themselves.
Common sense is totally lost on individuals such as whom you quoted.
If they are as good as you say they are then I am glad I do not employ them. I employ lawyers who actually study the law and courts and know how they work. As such, and to borrow a cliche, your arguments are made of phail. |
| Date | 06:56:21, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | You have clearly given up trying to discuss the substantive issue here of ruining the legal system because you have no reason for do so at all. |
| Date | 07:00:56, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | It is not being ruined Judicial Union Party. It is being enhanced by something that has been necessary for quite sometime. It is a shame that all those so called lawyers and judges you have in your party is unable to see it. |
| Date | 14:44:44, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | I already have. Numerous times. It is not my fault that you do not understand the reasoning. |
| Date | 01:38:19, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | 1) A person is entitled to have his case heard at the highest possible court. Under current law, a case cannot be moved from the regional high court to the national supreme court.
2) The current law denies someone to appeal his case to the national court if he so chooses to do so.
3) With you supporting the current law over the proposed law, you are denying a person their right to take it to the highest court in the land.
4) Everyone has the right to appeal to the highest court. Wether or not it is heard is another story left soley up to the justices. |
| Date | 02:59:10, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | Actually, the top court of nations usually decides whether to hear a case. An appellant must apply for leave to appeal to a supreme court, and that may or may not be allowed. There is no "right" to appeal to a supreme court.
Nor is it true that the national courts are superior to tribal courts, that is where your misconceptions stem from. Perhaps it is true that the constitutional supreme court is superior, but they only hear constitutional issues, not the ordinary application of national law. A person may go through the tribal court system for a local matter, as far as they want, nothing prevents them from doing so. |
| Date | 03:13:22, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | "Every person has the right to appeal against a judgement and to have it reviewed by a higher court"
You were saying? |
| Date | 03:41:59, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | Yes, "a higher court". Not the Supreme Court. And national courts are not "higher" than tribal courts, they have different jurisdictions. |
| Date | 03:56:02, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | A higher court can also include the Supreme Court. After all, it is a higher court. |
| Date | 04:12:22, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | We will let the Supreme Court decide that one. They can take whatever issues they want to take constitutional or non constitutional. |
| Date | 06:34:12, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Hello Kitty Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | I guess the parties have shown common sense. All but one so far that is. For a Judicial party, you sure suck when it comes to justice legislation. |
| Date | 06:37:19, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | Put your hands up if you have a legal education:
*Puts hand up*
Oh look, no one else has. It's a wonder unqualified people think they somehow have the ability to legislate. It would like like a person without a medical degree trying to perform surgery. It's just going to end badly. |
| Date | 07:03:49, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Hello Kitty Party | To | Debating the Appeal Reform Act | | Message | You realize that no one else is online? You really are a nut. You go to clown school? |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 267 |
| no | Total Seats: 169 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 64 |
| Random fact: In order for a Cabinet bill to pass, more than half of the legislature must vote for it and all of the parties included in the proposed Cabinet must support it. If your nation has a Head of State who is also the Head of Government, then the party controlling this character must also vote for the bill, since the Head of Government is also a member of the Cabinet. If any of these requirements are not met, the bill will not pass. |
| Random quote: "It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope." -
Niccolo Machiavelli |