|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2009 15:29:46 GMT -6
All for another day. Having clarified some of the finer details with Owen via GTalk, I would support this measure.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Mar 18, 2009 15:55:13 GMT -6
As it is presently worded, I have no objections.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2009 17:37:31 GMT -6
Yup.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 19, 2009 0:04:57 GMT -6
I have many serious concerns about this bill. I discussed some of them with MC Edwards last night, but it seems wise to have most discussions about this done in public, for commentary and transparency. I am fairly slow on the uptake, and this is the best way to ensure that other legislators can point out my (frequent) mistakes. Naturally, I can't vote on this either way, but maybe others will think the way I do.
First of all, I see a serious problem when it comes to the separation of powers. We have a great deal of entanglement between the legislative and executive powers thanks to the nature of our government, and it works very well with the King serving as watchman. But we have also very carefully kept our Cort free of those entanglements. People with interests or conflicts in a case have been unable to serve as a justice for a particular case, or to serve as prosecutor. And most importantly, the justices are not double-dipping in the government.
There's nothing wrong with holding multiple offices. I am Mencei of the Senats and an officer in the Zuoaves, and while there is some potential for conflict, it is a negligible question. Serving one's country in as many capacities as one fairly can is nothing to be ashamed of, but rather to be proud of.
However, the justice system should be clearly and solidly free. No member of the legislature or government should be permitted to be a magistrate; the complexity and problems that could emerge for abuse of power are too numerous, especially given the close-knit nature of Talossan social life. We must have Corts that are like the wife of Caesar.
Secondly, I have strong reservations about whether or not this is needed. I have seen absolutely no evidence that the Cort pu Inalt is incapable of handling the cases that are brought before it (at a rate of one or two a year) beyond the inactivity of some of the Justices. We should be confronting this head-on, rather than trying to circumvent them by making them into essentially a court of appeals. I have every respect for the Justices, but if a minimum level of activity can't be maintained by every member of the Cort then that is something we should face up to now, rather than just gingerly setting it aside and bypassing them. If Talossa cannot muster three people to dedicate themselves on one branch of government, then we have much bigger problems than this bill will fix.
Thirdly, there are no provided rules for jurisdiction or for the limitations on this lower court to decide issues. "All laws"... does this include Organic questions? Would this lower court wield all the same power as the Cort pu Inalt?
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Mar 19, 2009 6:15:22 GMT -6
No objections to the bill in its current wording.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2009 7:00:51 GMT -6
I have many serious concerns about this bill. I discussed some of them with MC Edwards last night, but it seems wise to have most discussions about this done in public, for commentary and transparency. I am fairly slow on the uptake, and this is the best way to ensure that other legislators can point out my (frequent) mistakes. Naturally, I can't vote on this either way, but maybe others will think the way I do. First of all, I see a serious problem when it comes to the separation of powers. We have a great deal of entanglement between the legislative and executive powers thanks to the nature of our government, and it works very well with the King serving as watchman. But we have also very carefully kept our Cort free of those entanglements. People with interests or conflicts in a case have been unable to serve as a justice for a particular case, or to serve as prosecutor. And most importantly, the justices are not double-dipping in the government. There's nothing wrong with holding multiple offices. I am Mencei of the Senats and an officer in the Zuoaves, and while there is some potential for conflict, it is a negligible question. Serving one's country in as many capacities as one fairly can is nothing to be ashamed of, but rather to be proud of. However, the justice system should be clearly and solidly free. No member of the legislature or government should be permitted to be a magistrate; the complexity and problems that could emerge for abuse of power are too numerous, especially given the close-knit nature of Talossan social life. We must have Corts that are like the wife of Caesar. Secondly, I have strong reservations about whether or not this is needed. I have seen absolutely no evidence that the Cort pu Inalt is incapable of handling the cases that are brought before it (at a rate of one or two a year) beyond the inactivity of some of the Justices. We should be confronting this head-on, rather than trying to circumvent them by making them into essentially a court of appeals. I have every respect for the Justices, but if a minimum level of activity can't be maintained by every member of the Cort then that is something we should face up to now, rather than just gingerly setting it aside and bypassing them. If Talossa cannot muster three people to dedicate themselves on one branch of government, then we have much bigger problems than this bill will fix. Thirdly, there are no provided rules for jurisdiction or for the limitations on this lower court to decide issues. "All laws"... does this include Organic questions? Would this lower court wield all the same power as the Cort pu Inalt? I hear some of your objections and wish to simply throw out some other thoughts. While the separation of powers is a big concern for me, I say we tackle that one last. The biggest point you have brought up was the necessity of an expanded Court system. As you have said, there is no evidence that the Uppermost Cort cannot handle affairs at this present time. But there is evidence. Look in the Court thread. The Government vs. Chancery case opened in September and arguments concluded in December. It is now March and no decision has been made. Aside from this, S:reu Weckstrom was told he would face criminal charges which were forwarded to the Uppermost Cort for action, there has been no action since then. In addition, the Ministry of Defence requested judicial intervention back in January, with no response. All of your objections are sound, Senator. Except for the claim that our Cort is functioning properly. No citizen, regardless of what they are accused of should sit in a legal limbo for this long waiting for his day in Cort. Aside from that, a conviction by the Uppermost Cort leaves a person with only one recourse, Royal Clemency or Pardon. That is pretty extreme. To compare it to the U.S. System, presently a parking ticket would be handled by the Supreme Court with the only hope for appeal being a Presidential Pardon. So the problem goes beyond whether three justices can be active. You look at this act as bypassing that problem. I do not, I look at it as helping to make the system more equitable to the accused and fairer to the parties in civil cases. The issue of justice activity may still be an issue, a separate issue from what this bill intends to remedy.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Mar 19, 2009 11:36:13 GMT -6
....Aside from that, a conviction by the Uppermost Cort leaves a person with only one recourse, Royal Clemency or Pardon. That is pretty extreme. To compare it to the U.S. System, presently a parking ticket would be handled by the Supreme Court with the only hope for appeal being a Presidential Pardon. So the problem goes beyond whether three justices can be active. You look at this act as bypassing that problem. I do not, I look at it as helping to make the system more equitable to the accused and fairer to the parties in civil cases. The issue of justice activity may still be an issue, a separate issue from what this bill intends to remedy. I agree 100% with Capt. Tim.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 19, 2009 12:00:29 GMT -6
I'm gonna have to side with Capt. Tim.
Justice is not swift in Talossa.
(But I do have reservations of people being both Law MAKER and Law ENFORCER. I don't think Judges should be involved in making or passing legislation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2009 12:23:55 GMT -6
Can you guys refresh me as to the law prohibiting UC Justices from serving as legislators? I have been scouring the website but cannot remember where I saw it. Doesn't it include Justices of inferior courts?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 19, 2009 12:38:01 GMT -6
Tim, you're looking for XVI.3 re Cort pu Inalt Justices.
Mick, I sympathise, though I'd point out a few things:
1) Any further separation of powers would need to be a separate Amendment.
2) If a a person involved in legislating on a particular bill of civil or criminal importance is a Magistrate, they could hardly sit on a case relating to the Bill without accusations of mistrial. Furthermore, I think at this present stage in Talossa's stage it is a relatively minor issue; operative courts and active Talossans are the target. Disbarring magistrates from other roles magnifies the problem we have with the UC - active Talossans are limited in activity, whilst inactive Talossans have a lot of influence over an important area.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2009 12:50:24 GMT -6
I'm just throwing out a possible alternative...nobody bite...
WHEREAS Talossa is an ever growing, vibrant society and
WHEREAS every good society has laws and
WHEREAS the enforcement and interpretation of these laws is a duty that now falls squarely on the shoulders of three Justices of the Uppermost Cort and
WHEREAS we can probably distribute that workload a bit more fairly so
THEREFORE, the Ziu recognizes the right of each provincial government to establish a provincial court and recognizes every such court as an official judicial body, legally established as inferior to the Uppermost Cort.
1. Each province may legislate the formation of a provincial court organized pursuant to Talossan and Provincial Law.
2. The formation of each court, to include titles and and eligibility rules shall be determined by each provinces insofar as they do not conflict with the Organic Law or applicable Talossan Statutory Law.
3. While primary jurisdiction in each case shall rest with the Uppermost Cort, it shall be understood that matters concerning provincial law will be handled first by the respective provincial court unless otherwise directed by the Uppermost Cort.
3. Criminal matters shall be handled at the Provincial level. Jurisdiction shall be determined based upon the provincial residency of the accused.
4. Civil matters shall be handled at the Provincial level only when both parties are residents of, or organizations or government entities residing within the same province.
4. Where jurisdiction is unclear, or where a jurisdiction is without an appointed Justice, or in cases where a Justice shall recuse himself to avoid a conflict of interest, the case shall be referred to the Uppermost Cort, which may, at the option of the Justices, refer the case to another provincial court to be heard.
5. No provincial court shall hear cases in which one or more parties are the Government of the Kingdom, the Monarch or Regent, Offices of the Royal Household, the Ziu or the government of another province.
6. All decisions made by the Provincial Court System, civil or criminal, shall be considered binding unless overturned on appeal to the Uppermost Cort.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2009 12:54:19 GMT -6
My intent, by the way, is to throw out some other possibilities to see how people feel about them so we can tweak a legislative bill enough that it will pass, not to hijack Owen's thread.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 19, 2009 13:49:33 GMT -6
( My Dear DSoS:
OrgLaw
Article XVI: The Courts
Section 3. Neither a reigning King nor his Consort, nor a Regent during his regency, nor the Secretary of State, nor the Seneschal shall be a Justice of the Uppermost Cort or a judge in any inferior court that the Ziu may create. Nor shall any Senator or Member of the Cosa be a Justice of the Uppermost Cort.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2009 14:01:39 GMT -6
Thanks, Mick and Owen. For some reason I kept reading right over it. So, a Magistrate would not be permitted to hold any of those offices, the separation of power is there, no?
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Mar 19, 2009 14:08:30 GMT -6
Well, that was my question considering they're not called "judges."
My other question is about appointment. Do they serve for life? Are they elected by each province? Are they appointed by the Head of the Province?
|
|