Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: April 5461
Next month in: 02:08:27
Server time: 05:51:32, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): Aur3ale | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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 Courts and Appeals Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Federalist 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: July 3682

Description[?]:

An act liberalising the courts. Redefines the right of Appeal in order that those who feel wronged may justly repeal to a court and not the head of State.

Provides legal representation at state cost to those least able to afford private lawyers, and bans physical punishment.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date07:28:15, June 13, 2014 CET
FromGrand Nationalist Fraction
ToDebating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

we appreciate your input and we are not uncooperative. We only wonder, how do you see the organisation of the Courts? Since the President speaks right under the current law, we do not need to think about a firm organisation. We only wonder how things are to be organised and how much it would cost.

Ray Hoetgals
Minister of Justice

Date18:45:57, June 13, 2014 CET
FromFederalist Party
ToDebating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act
MessageMr. Speaker

We see a system of local courts within each province, with each province having a regional supreme court, with the power of appeal, the appeals go to the national court(somewhat like the system of courts here in the US). We do not think that any raises in spending need occur, as this can be appropriated from the judicial budget already.

Date18:49:49, June 13, 2014 CET
FromGrand Nationalist Fraction
ToDebating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

this seems like a solid system. But how do we arrange the placement of judges. How many judges should there be, locally and nationally?
We should really think this through...

Ray Hoetgals
Minister of Justice

Date18:55:22, June 13, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

I am fine deciding what is right or wrong. We also don't care what the Federalists think. Their vote on a bill can't change its outcome unless one of the 3 main parties abstain. Any combination of 2 of the 3 main parties will result in a majority. The position of the Federalists is rather irrelevant.

In the past, they have shown that they know nothing about the economy or Finance. They have now come to prove it again by insisting that our Justice Ministry budget can handle the change. Our Justice spending is ranked very lowly in the world, and is less than 32% of the world average. The Federalists should leave government to those who can govern.

--

Benjamin Landau,
Chairman of the GNRG,
President of Lodamun

Date19:17:54, June 13, 2014 CET
FromFederalist Party
ToDebating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act
MessageI suggest we leave the the exact number of local judges to the different regions as those will only be local courts. As for the National Court, I am open to suggestions, but I think 7-9 is a good number.

Judge Placement, I suggest for the local courts we leave it to the regions. For the national court Ruling government nominates with the advice and consent of the legislature.

Date20:41:09, June 13, 2014 CET
FromConservative Alliance Party
ToDebating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

What exactly are the problems involving the current model? I see this as a slightly unnecessary over-justification and bureaucratic infringement onto society that is not needed. We don't need more public servants and public money spent on the Ministry of Justice if it i not desperately needed.

Considering that this request did not come from the Ministry of Justice and therefore we can conclude is both not necessary and not needed, then we see no benefit in this policy change. Perhaps a report could be submitted by either the Ministry of Justice or an independent law firm contracted by the Federalist Party on the benefits of this policy change; which would bring us to more kindly view the proposal.

- Larry Holdman
Justice Critic for the CAP

Date21:22:52, June 13, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

If the law gives power to courts, we can use this to determine the number of judges per state: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=388913

Anyway, the Supreme Court currently exists as a formality. It has no judicial power or authority. Instead, it is an advisory body to the President. It can be delegated to rule on a judicial matter, but the final decision rests with the President. It's really an informal court, made up of MPs.

We share the sentiments of the CAP.

--

Thomas Huddleson,
GNRG Spokesman on Justice

Date21:53:23, June 13, 2014 CET
FromFederalist Party
ToDebating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act
MessageTo Respond to CAP,

The Current model does not give us the most essential thing for a democratic state...a free and independent judiciary and a country of laws not arbitrary decisions on a legal matters from any HOS.

Date22:00:27, June 13, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

We believe that "the most essential thing for a democratic state" is having a system where the majority rules. Democracy means nothing else, but that. While a free and independent judiciary can exist in a democratic state, it isn't required for a state to be considered to be democratic, and it can only exist when there is a constitution that hinders democracy to favour liberal ideals.

--

Thomas Huddleson,
GNRG Spokesman on Justice

Date23:25:24, June 13, 2014 CET
FromConservative Alliance Party
ToDebating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

We respect the concerns of the Federalist Party and acknowledge that they are simply trying to do what they believe is best. On the risk of this becoming a debate on democracy and not the policy change mentioned, we share the opinion well expressed by my colleague the GNRG Spokesman on Justice. In fact, we believe that an independent judiciary is far more authoritative than is reasonable and if it is without due oversight by the Presidium is strictly undemocratic.

At the moment, the Supreme Court advises the President. That system identifies that (a) nobody voted for the judges who are therefore undemocratically appointed and inherently authoritarian, and (b) the final decision should rest with the ultimate representative of the people: the President. Having an independent judiciary eliminates both of those considerations and we make the case that it is thereby undemocratic.

While we recognize the concerns of the Federalists that they worry about "arbitrary decisions on legal matters" by the President: but we point out that in that case that individual is accountable to the people and to elections, and therefore would not be making "arbitrary decisions." However, an independent judge? Any "arbitrary decision" made there would have no political accountability and would therefore be more undemocratic.

That is the point of the view of the Conservative Alliance. We respect the Federalists for attempting to improve judicial matters, but we prefer the current system.

- Larry Holdman
Justice Critic for the CAP

Date23:26:37, June 13, 2014 CET
FromConservative Alliance Party
ToDebating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act
MessageOOC: correction that the Supreme Court is informal and judges are MPs and are actually accountable, but the independent Supreme Court proposed would not be MPs.

Date23:45:36, June 13, 2014 CET
From Great National Republican Guard
ToDebating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

We thank the CAP for their contribution to the debate, and we would like to add to one of their points. It is rare that a party in Lodamun gains a solid majority in the Presidium. Lodamun's President, unlike most foreign Presidents, is elected by the Presidium instead of being directly-elected. This means that a President can easily be replaced if a majority of the Presidium disapproves of him. What is more democratic than this?

--

Thomas Huddleson,
GNRG Spokesman on Justice

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 455

no
 

Total Seats: 128

abstain
 

Total Seats: 16


Random fact: Particracy allows you to establish an unelected head of state like a monarch or a president-for-life, but doing this is a bit of a process. First elect a candidate with the name "." to the Head of State position. Then change your law on the "Structure of the executive branch" to "The head of state is hereditary and symbolic; the head of government chairs the cabinet" and change the "formal title of the head of state" to how you want the new head of state's title and name to appear (eg. King Percy XVI).

Random quote: "How we can possibly be giving £1bn a month, when we're in this sort of debt, to Bongo Bongo Land is completely beyond me." - Godfrey Bloom

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 83