View Topic

[Do you approve of this bill, or of the idea of a separate Judicial Branch of government?]

Do you approve of this bill, or of the idea of a separate Judicial Branch of government?

Yes I approve of this bill, and the idea of a separate Judicial Branch of government

2 (16.7%)

I don't approve of this bill currently, but I do support a separate Judicial Branch of government

4 (33.3%)

I do not support either.

3 (25%)

Unsure

3 (25%)

Total Members Voted: 12

I wasn't sure how to do this, so I decided to put my proposal here and gauge the citizens' reaction to this bill.  This proposal stems from earlier discussions here, and my summoning.  Since then, I've been trying to decide how to go about dealing with this judicial matter, while dealing with other things. 

My apologies for the lateness in this, but here is the proposed Judiciary amendment I have come up with.

Title
This Amendment shall be titled the Fundamental Laws Amendment VI: Judicial Creation Act

I. Creation of Judiciary
A. The Monarch shall set up a special election for which three positions will be open for the Supreme Court, to be called the Høyesterett, upon enactment of this law.
1. No citizen who is a current member of the Riksrad, or Storting, may serve on the Høyesterett, or run in the election, without first resigning.
2. The special election will last for seven days, after a week of campaigning.
3. Upon election, the three shall become Jafnaðrs (Justices), and the Monarch shall select one of the three to be the Yfimaðr (Justice Chieftain)

II. Judicial Functions and Elections 
A. Article III, Section 1, of the Fundamental Laws shall be amended as follows:

1. Upon the filing and acceptance of cases within the Storting, the Monarch shall select at random a Peer of the Overhusen and two Skrifa of the Underhusen to serve as judges. The Peer shall serve as Chief Judge, and the Skrifa shall serve as Associate Judges Høyesterett, the Jafnaðrs will preside over the case.

 
B. Article III, Section 2, of the Fundamental Laws shall be amended as follows:

2. All trials and cases shall proceed along the procedures established by the Storting Høyesterett.

C. Article III of the Fundamental Laws shall have the following additions:

3. The Høyesterett's purpose will be to:
A. try criminal cases of person or persons charged in the region with any violation of any crimes in the region and render any necessary punishments
B. try civil cases of person or persons in the region to determine liability and render any necessary punishments
C. conduct judicial review, where it shall determine if the actions of the executive branch, legislative branch, or its laws and decrees, are constitutional.

4. The Jafnaðrs will come to a verdict upon the conclusion of the case, and make it public and open for commentary. 
A. Jafnaðrs will recuse themselves if a conflict of interest occurs during a case, and a temporary Jafnaðrs will be selected by the Monarch for the duration of the case.
B. People will be allowed to represent themselves in court, or seek counsel.   If counsel is requested, the Jafnaðrs will appoint a willing counsel to represent them in court.

5. If a decision is made by the court that the petitioner wishes to appeal, they may do so to the Monarch, who has final say.

6. Jafnaðrs shall serve for a six-month term, done by popular election during the regular election cycle.
A. All citizens, except those who are serving on the Riksrad or in the Storting, may be eligible to run.

7. Jafnaðrs can only be removed by impeachment for violations of the law, or by public recall.
A. Public recall of Jafnaðrs can only be done if a Jafnaðr has committed a high crime or misdemanour, and must receive the support of 2/3rds of active citizens.
B. Impeachment cases shall be heard by a joint session of the Storting, with the Chairman of the Overhusen presiding.
1. It shall take a 2/3 vote by members of the Storting to impeach a justice.
2. The Monarch shall be the final say on appeals of an impeachment conviction, should the Jafnaðr in question file an appeal.
3. If the Jafnaðr is impeached, the Monarch shall appoint a temporary Jafnaðr to serve the remainder of the term.

III. Creation of the Jarl of Justice
A. Upon passage of this act, a Jarl of Justice shall be appointed that will join the Riksrad.
B. The Jarl of Justice shall serve as the Crown Prosecutor in all criminal cases and serve as the Riksrad's representative in any civil trials against the government.
C. The Jarl of Justice may appoint anyone as needed to help manage and handle crown prosecutions, including Thanes and any deputies.

IV. Enactment
A. Upon passage of this law, the Monarch shall set forth a special election to begin the process of selecting members of the Høyesterett

Yes, this is my first law I've written here in Wintreath.  What do you guys think?  Please be reasonable and constructive.

I voted Unsure. Reason for this is that I'm not convinced that we have sufficient population to beneficially run yet another institution. I can't support increasing the complexity of our bureaucratic system while the established Storting stands cabable of handling its workload.

I grant that in the future the need for a such system may arise. I don't oppose the creating of necessary structures to allow setting up a Judiciary quickly once the need is recognized by the Storting.

My humble opinion as a mere citizen.

We do have an influx of new citizens though, and active ones like yourself to help get involved, and with the amount of votes garnered in the Special Underhusen Election as well as the Underhusen Election before it, we have the numbers, tatte.

This is a way for the people to get involved in the region.  This also helps ensure no conflicts of interest and that each branch of government isn't manned by the same people.

Anyone who votes "I don't approve of this bill currently, but I do support a separate Judicial Branch of government", I'm curious how this bill can be improved.

I thank those for their responses so far.

I feel like we could use easier words for most things in this legislation. For example, Jafnaðr or Yfimaðr feels a bit hard to write.
Also, you say "No citizen who is a current member of the Riksrad..." I'm not sure if one would be a "member of the Riksråd", I interpret it as if each person in the government is a Riksråd, like one could be a minister. These are just cosmetic things though, the legislation is good.

I feel like we could use easier words for most things in this legislation. For example, Jafnaðr or Yfimaðr feels a bit hard to write.
Also, you say "No citizen who is a current member of the Riksrad..." I'm not sure if one would be a "member of the Riksråd", I interpret it as if each person in the government is a Riksråd, like one could be a minister. These are just cosmetic things though, the legislation is good.

Those are old Norse words for Justice and Chieftain,  respectively.   I couldn't find a translation in Norwegian for Associate Justice or Justice, and the Norwegian word for Chief Justice is really long

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

While this is a great show of political theatrics, it doesn't change anything from the last time we ldiscussed a justice system. Wintreath isn't a democracy, and even if everyone else absolutely loved this, I would still be fundamentally opposed to it. In fact, I've always known that such a situation could come up where the vision that drives this region conflicts with what may be popular, if nothing else because of the mindset that everything should be a democracy. That is why there are provisions of the Fundamental Laws that give me the power to defend the values and principles of this region even if they come under popular attack.

As you yourself said in another topic, doing the right thing may not always be the popular thing.

I am still fundamentally opposed to an standing judiciary, which in itself becomes an arbitrary institution of power with people allowed to make decisions with impunity, especially when it has the power to interpret the Fundamental Laws. Not only that, but throughout NS the judiciary is usually the least active branch of government, and I don't see the need to have a standing inactive branch of government.

I am certainly opposed to elected judges. It's not even just that this region isn't a democracy, but the thought that justice should be based on law as determined by experienced people and not be subject to regular popularity contests where even the newest of Citizens that have not even read our laws could potentially become a judge. As a region that stands against politics, I don't believe it's wise to insert them into our judicial process.

Additionally, as I have stated before in other cases, any provision that attempts to delegate Executive authorities, to create ministries, or otherwise attempts to interfere with the chain of the command within the Executive is not only just undue interference in the Executive, but violates Article II Section 2 of the Fundamental Laws. You can't create Executive authorities and then require that they be held in a particular office. I know that an amendment would supersede that, but obviously I'm still going to oppose it.

While this is a great show of political theatrics, it doesn't change anything from the last time we ldiscussed a justice system. Wintreath isn't a democracy, and even if everyone else absolutely loved this, I would still be fundamentally opposed to it. In fact, I've always known that such a situation could come up where the vision that drives this region conflicts with what may be popular, if nothing else because of the mindset that everything should be a democracy. That is why there are provisions of the Fundamental Laws that give me the power to defend the values and principles of this region even if they come under popular attack.

As you yourself said in another topic, doing the right thing may not always be the popular thing.

I am still fundamentally opposed to an standing judiciary, which in itself becomes an arbitrary institution of power with people allowed to make decisions with impunity, especially when it has the power to interpret the Fundamental Laws. Not only that, but throughout NS the judiciary is usually the least active branch of government, and I don't see the need to have a standing inactive branch of government.

I am certainly opposed to elected judges. It's not even just that this region isn't a democracy, but the thought that justice should be based on law as determined by experienced people and not be subject to regular popularity contests where even the newest of Citizens that have not even read our laws could potentially become a judge. As a region that stands against politics, I don't believe it's wise to insert them into our judicial process.

Additionally, as I have stated before in other cases, any provision that attempts to delegate Executive authorities, to create ministries, or otherwise attempts to interfere with the chain of the command within the Executive is not only just undue interference in the Executive, but violates Article II Section 2 of the Fundamental Laws. You can't create Executive authorities and then require that they be held in a particular office. I know that an amendment would supersede that, but obviously I'm still going to oppose it.

Checks and balances are needed to make sure no one branch of government is overpowering.

I don't see why you are afraid of something that is really needed.  This is logical and prevents conflict of interests.  This isn't Spiritus and Salaxalans isn't here.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

Checks and balances are a feature of representative democracies, which Wintreath is not.

I've already stated the reasons I'm opposed (not "afraid" as you claim). I even summarized them in my previous post. I don't see how I can make it any clearer.

Checks and balances are a feature of representative democracies, which Wintreath is not.

I've already stated the reasons I'm opposed (not "afraid" as you claim). I even summarized them in my previous post. I don't see how I can make it any clearer.

We have a parliamentary democracy,  which is a form of representative democracy.  A judiciary I feel is needed, and I took the inputs from the last discussion from everyone to implement this, which is why I was asking for reasonable feedback.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

No, we don't. Even a cursory review of the Fundamental Laws and our government structure would show that. O_o

No, we don't. Even a cursory review of the Fundamental Laws and our government structure would show that. O_o

We elect our Underhusen, do we not?

Just because there's one elected portion of government doesn't mean that the region is a democracy. Over two thirds of the government is appointed, and the Executive is unelected...those are hardly traits of a democracy...

Even in a fully democratic society, which this region is clearly way off, I am against elected Judges. I think upholding the law of the land should be on a higher level than popularity contests that occur in a vote.

Judges should be appointed on their expertise. They also need to be objective and independent and I believe, as with a range of other matters, the monarch can be trusted to make this decision.

Even in a fully democratic society, which this region is clearly way off, I am against elected Judges. I think upholding the law of the land should be on a higher level than popularity contests that occur in a vote.

Judges should be appointed on their expertise. They also need to be objective and independent and I believe, as with a range of other matters, the monarch can be trusted to make this decision.

In earlier discussions, people were somehow against the idea of appointed justices with no way of recalling them.  I tried to strike a medium balance, especially after Denth / Daws suggested election terms in the earlier thread.

Stark, what if instead of being elected, each election cycle, rather, each six months, their appointments were confirmed by the people?  That is, Wintermoot can appoint the three, and during the next election, they can be confirmed?  If one or more appointees loses the majority vote, they get replaced by another appointee?