View Topic

Can't that point be argued into the ground about...oh...say...ANY of our laws or bills?

(Not point for point, but you know what I mean)

Well I mean this is a rather important bill, so we should be fucking careful. Also I would like it if we could wait until tomorrow as I will be unable to respond for a few  hours to sleep and for school

I don't actually think a clear point has been made, but I'll withdraw my motion to expedite. However, I actually want to see you come up with a clear example of how this bill could negatively impact things, not a general warning that we need to be careful. In addition, I want to see you suggest an improvement, instead of just pointing out flaws.

Listen, the Judiciary is an important thing. When it comes to Legislative or Executive, when they are changed any issues are noticeable quickly. When it's the Judiciary it is not. Any issues would be hidden until the future. By the time that the issue would be noticed it very well could be too late. The Judicial system would have failed and would have fucked up in that regard. With that it's very possible that an important case would end up with a miscarriage of justice. We noticed the ignoring loophole when the first request for a case was ignored. We may close that loophole, but with that it means the system must be used before it is noticed that there is an issue.

Further the reason why we are even debating this today is because of the lack of review for laws in the past. In the past the Storting would pass what is a great idea on paper, buy they failed to actually think. They failed to think of the possible outcomes. Now we, and future sessions, have to clean that up. Do we want to Condemn more future sessions to cleaning up our mess? I think all of us here are going to answer no, we do not. As such it would be an irresponsible of us to do this with an important bill. It was done with the Judicial Offices Act, the Fundamental Laws, the Citizenship and Demonym Act, and even our very own procedural rules. We must not allow that to occur again, and we need to pay closer attention to laws, especially when it comes to laws that affect how the branches work. We owe it to the citizens, to those that we represent, to do this.

I will end with this. The Storting itself is guilty of doing that, the Underhusen more so. The Overhusen has helped in preventing certain horrible laws from ever passing. I myself am guilty of having voted Aye for a law without actually completely thinking about it. I myself am guilty of voting for the idea that was presented. However we all must work to prevent that from happening from here on out. If that means that we slow down the legislative process a little for laws that have large effects on the operation or powers of any branch of Government, then so be it. 

I'm still not seeing anything other than an impassioned speech to be careful.

I genuinely don't understand what the problem is with this particular law. You seem convinced there is one, so explain it. I'm not giving you a hard time. I'm genuinely not seeing the problem.

Further, there is no such thing as the perfect procedure. If we're going to refrain from making any changes just because of what could go wrong, our system will stay a failure anyway.

Listen Laurentus, we must be careful though. Further I can not support this bill with sections 4, 5, and 6 in it. I just can't. I feel that the Fundamental Laws does not need those sections in it. Further I HATE sections 4 and 5 because they needlessly add in bureaucracy which may choke the system and make it needlessly complicated. We also don't even know their potential effects on current law. I hate section 6 because I find it unnecessary and I am against expanding the legal powers of the Administrative Branch.

So it's not that you feel there are loopholes in the proposal, you're just against it in general.

A little of both. I feel there are loopholes in it, and that I am against it in general.

Well, seeing as I doubt I can change your mind on the it in general without fundamentally changing what it proposes, what exact loopholes do you find in it that you haven't already brought up?

Lets see:
1) Section 4 allows the Monarch to ignore appeals or do unfair appeals since the Monarch has no checks against his procedure.

2) Section 6 is a bit overly broad as harm to the community is not defined. Thus an administrative person could ban someone just for disagreeing and claim said person was a harm to the community.

3) Section 5 technically also prevents the Storting from setting procedure for appeals to them, thus also preventing the Storting from actually hearing appeals.

I'm not sure if this would be a preferable version, but I've attempted to make some modifications to sections 4 and 5 address some of your concerns. In this version the Monarch would hear all appeals, and the Storting wouldn't so much hear an appeal but have the option to consider that a revocation sentence be overturned, a format which may better suit the Stortings legislative nature.

As for section 6, that is the nature of the authority of the founder...given that the founder owns the forums and holds the regional founder account. You're trusting that they will respect and uphold the spirit of the law as part of the social contract between the founder and the community and won't do things such as banish people for no good reason outside the law. I'm going to hold firm on that one for those reasons.

Again, if the Storting prefers the original version I'm fine with that as well, but I thought I'd take a crack at addressing some of the issues you brought up.

The Judicial Reform Amendment Act

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 decide 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 revocation of Citizenship as a result of a sentence which is conferred or upheld by the Monarch may be overturned by an Act of the Storting if the person whose Citizenship is being revoked requests that it consider doing so within 7 days of the appeal ruling. In the event a revocation is overturned, the initial judicial panel shall determine an alternative sentence. The Storting shall have the authority to define procedures and rules for requesting a sentence of revocation be overturned.

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.

I still have issue with Section 4 as it allows someone to essentially pardon their friend(s). I would also suggest adding the ability to restart the trial entirely with new judges (if possible) once or twice.

If you add in "sentence from a Judiciary Panel" to Section 5 then I would have little issue with that statement. However I would also suggest making it a new panel to re-hear the case unless a new one can not be formed with the majority of new members (ex: the two Skrifa are the only members that can actually be apart of the case for some reason).

I still can not support Section 6 though, matter of principal more than anything.

Okay, let's try to debate this in the Citizen's Platform to gain a wider-reaching consensus, and hopefully hear the Overhusen chime in as well.

For now, although I have expressed my full support of this bill and I still support it, I'm going to motion to table this discussion for now as it has been pointed out that this bill is not free of controversy. It may never be, as seen by the ideological stands taken by some members of the community, but we should attempt to make it as free as possible of controversy, while still achieving some sort of change for the better.

I agree with Laurentus, I think for the time being this should be open to as many perspectives and opinions as possible, while the final product in the end might still not please everyone there are defiantly seems to be some big doubts with some over the act in it's current form, that I think should be looked at by more than just the people here.

As such I second the motion to table.

As pointed out by Laurentus, even if we have a second on this motion, it still has to come to a vote (unlike the other two motions).  All in favor of tabling this bill?