View Topic

Title
1) This Act shall be cited as the Judicial Reform Amendment Act.

Provisions
2) Article I Section 17 shall be amended as follows:

17. The Storting shall have the authority to create and revise the rules of judicial proceedings for judicial panels.

3) Article III Section 1 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 who are not parties to the case to serve as judges in a judicial panel. The Peer shall serve as Chief Judge, and the Skrifa shall serve as Associate Judges.

4) The following shall be added as Article III Section 3:

3. Rulings may be appealed to the Monarch, who shall have the authority to vacate, modify, or uphold the ruling of the judicial panel. The Monarch shall have the authority to define procedures and rules for hearing and deciding upon appeals, as well as to delegate these authorities to other officials or offices.

5) The following shall be added as Article III Section 4:

4. Any sentence resulting in revocation of Citizenship which is conferred or upheld by the Monarch may be appealed to the Storting, which shall only have the authority to consider the appeal of the revocation. In the event that the appeal is successful, the case shall return to the initial judicial panel, which shall only have the authority to modify the sentence.

6) Article VI Section 4 shall be amended as follows:

4. The Winter Nomad and all subordinate administrative officials shall be responsible for protecting Wintreath properties from any content which is illegal or otherwise, violates the terms of service of the provider of the Wintreath property, or otherwise brings harm to the region or community. Actions taken under this responsibility shall supersede the Declaration of Rights.

So yeah. Pretty straight forward.

I think I like this as much as I'll ever like something that actually stands a chance of passing so...

So do we want to discuss this in detail, or does anyone want to make a motion?  Like I said in Wintermoot's topic, I'm pretty much in agreement with it, so I've not much to say on it.

Hold your horses, just updated with WM's changes in the other thread.
*PB makes the edit*
Ok, you may free your horses.

Okay, horses away.

I motion to expedite.

A motion to expedite has been made.  Do we have a second?

I suggest we wait until the outcome of the pending trial is released. We have yet to actually try out the court system we have, so we have no idea if this would actually do any good, aside from allowing the process to be possibly clogged up more.

Therefore I request that the Motion to Expedite be rescinded not to actually have discussion, but to wait and see the outcomes. We can then use the knowledge that we have gained from this to better tweak the system.

Edit: Spelling (sysetm -> System)

It is risky business to go about amending the law on the cusp of s trial, but this is a constitutional amendment, so we wouldn't actually see the effects until it's ratified at the next election. Also, I'm not sure this would actually effect anything in your case.

It actually would alter parts of the Judicial Offices Act by changing the standard in which they were written under. Which is why I suggest waiting to see what we might need to change, and what we don't need to change. 

Nothing here explicitly ecitd the JOA, and the changes wouldn't even take effect for a little over a month.

Actually it would alter the appeals process and the process, the way that the Judicial Offices Act can be applied, and the Citizenship Act itself, since it technically forces the citizenship revocation by a monarch to head to a Judiciary Panel.

But none of that would occur for a month.

Yes, however at that point a lot of the feedback would be useless since we are changing that. It would be better to wait a few weeks to get the feedback and then work on this as necessary. Also it has a specific consequence in that it prevents the Storting from actually dealing with a revocation appeal as in the Citizenship act. I'm sure that was entirely unintentional.

I believe you're misunderstanding.

It only refers to revocations of Citizenship handed down as a sentence by a judicial panel, which technically could still happen under the current law. It does not interfere with the processes established in the Citizenship Act in any way that I'm aware of.

The law does not differentiate the standard revocation of Citizenship and Judicial Revocation, especially the Fundamental Laws. Therefore it would have that effect due to the lack of definition.