[HoC] Cort of Common Pleas Act - Discussion

[Lupulüc "Lupüc" da Fhöglha]

This is a discussion thread for the following proposed act, written by Commoner Óïn Ursüm. 

================================================================================================

Cort of Common Pleas Act

In accordance with Article II, section 6 of our Constitution, I bring before you a bill which provides for a judicial system for our province.

The King of Talossa, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons of Atatürk, enacts as follows:

(1) The judicial system of Atatürk consists in a Cort of Common Pleas, which has original jurisdiction over all suits, civil and criminal, arising under the laws of Atatürk.

(2)
a. The Cort of Common Pleas comprises a single Chief Judge of Common Pleas, assisted by up to two Puisne Judges of Common Pleas. Together they are known as Judges of the Cort of Common Pleas.
b. The Judges of the Cort of Common Pleas are nominated by the Başbakan and confirmed by a simple majority of the House of Commons.
c. The Judges of the Cort of Common Pleas serve at the pleasure of the House of Commons, and may be removed from office by a vote of two thirds of the House of Commons.

(3) Cases in the first instance are heard by a single Judge selected by the Chief Judge.

(4) When there are Puisne Judges, appeals are heard by the entire Cort of Common Pleas, sitting as a bench.

(5) The Cort of Common Pleas may not rule on a matter of law except when it is relevant to a case brought before it.

(6) The Cort of Common Pleas is bound by the rulings of the courts of the Kingdom of Talossa, and the Organic and Statutory Law of the Kingdom of Talossa.

(7) The Cort of Common Pleas interprets the Constitution, and as such its rulings may enjoin the application or execution of law when it is contrary to the Constitution.

Uréu q'estadra sa:
Óïn Ursüm (Commoner, ZRT)

[Lupulüc "Lupüc" da Fhöglha]

Personally, I think this is a good idea, BUT I think three judges is too much for such small and sadly inactive provinces, including our own. I would believe that one judges is enough for any Cort hearings here in the province. Also, what do you mean by "laws of Atatürk", do we have civil or criminal laws that I am not aware of, or do we need to create those as well (which I am completely ready to do)? Would we probably just use national civil and criminal laws, just process and try to resolve them on a provincial level first, before sending it over to the big guys upstairs? This is pretty much what most countries do: local level, state/provincial level, then national level. What do you think Commoners?

[Óïn Ursüm]

Sept 24, 2014 21:00:24 GMT -6 Lupulüc "Lupüc" da Fhöglha said:

Personally, I think this is a good idea, BUT I think three judges is too much for such small and sadly inactive provinces, including our own. I would believe that one judges is enough for any Cort hearings here in the province. Also, what do you mean by "laws of Atatürk", do we have civil or criminal laws that I am not aware of, or do we need to create those as well (which I am completely ready to do)? Would we probably just use national civil and criminal laws, just process and try to resolve them on a provincial level first, before sending it over to the big guys upstairs? This is pretty much what most countries do: local level, state/provincial level, then national level. What do you think Commoners?

The proposal doesn't mandate three judges: the HoC could stick with one Chief Judge if it saw fit to do so. This would mean no appeal on the provincial level, though.

By "laws of Atatürk" I mean, yes, our (currently very few) provincial statutes along with our Constitution. I envisage a quasi-federal separation between the provincial and national courts, where cases under national-level law are first heard in the Magistracy, while cases under provincial-level law are first heard in the provincial courts. The decisions of the provincial courts could of course be appealed to the appropriate national-level courts.

[Óïn Ursüm]

Sept 25, 2014 1:50:18 GMT -6 Óïn Ursüm said:

Sept 24, 2014 21:00:24 GMT -6 Lupulüc "Lupüc" da Fhöglha said:

Personally, I think this is a good idea, BUT I think three judges is too much for such small and sadly inactive provinces, including our own. I would believe that one judges is enough for any Cort hearings here in the province. Also, what do you mean by "laws of Atatürk", do we have civil or criminal laws that I am not aware of, or do we need to create those as well (which I am completely ready to do)? Would we probably just use national civil and criminal laws, just process and try to resolve them on a provincial level first, before sending it over to the big guys upstairs? This is pretty much what most countries do: local level, state/provincial level, then national level. What do you think Commoners?

The proposal doesn't mandate three judges: the HoC could stick with one Chief Judge if it saw fit to do so. This would mean no appeal on the provincial level, though.

By "laws of Atatürk" I mean, yes, our (currently very few) provincial statutes along with our Constitution. I envisage a quasi-federal separation between the provincial and national courts, where cases under national-level law are first heard in the Magistracy, while cases under provincial-level law are first heard in the provincial courts. The decisions of the provincial courts could of course be appealed to the appropriate national-level courts.

But your proposal might actually be better, because disputes under national law are currently not resolved very efficiently. I'm not that protective of my proposal, and I am happy to change it if this House, while liking the general idea, senses that some parts should be changed.

[Lupulüc "Lupüc" da Fhöglha]

I urge the other commoners to participate in the discussion. Sevastáin Pinátsch Brad Holmes Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

I was a bit ambivalent on the ideas until I was swayed by the 7th provision. Is it realistic?

[Óïn Ursüm]

Oct 5, 2014 19:15:30 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

I was a bit ambivalent on the ideas until I was swayed by the 7th provision. Is it realistic?

I don't see why not. Maybe I didn't word it very well, but what I intended was some kind of explicit power of judicial review.

[Óïn Ursüm]

Oct 6, 2014 0:42:35 GMT -6 Óïn Ursüm said:

Oct 5, 2014 19:15:30 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

I was a bit ambivalent on the ideas until I was swayed by the 7th provision. Is it realistic?

I don't see why not. Maybe I didn't word it very well, but what I intended was some kind of explicit power of judicial review.

The 'Constitution' in question being, of course, the provincial constitution.

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

Oct 6, 2014 0:42:35 GMT -6 Óïn Ursüm said:

Oct 5, 2014 19:15:30 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

I was a bit ambivalent on the ideas until I was swayed by the 7th provision. Is it realistic?

I don't see why not. Maybe I didn't word it very well, but what I intended was some kind of explicit power of judicial review.

That would be useful.