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 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 in a judicial panel, provided the selected person is not the plaintiff/defendant. The Peer shall serve as Chief Judge, and the Skrifa shall serve as Associate Judges.  The Monarch is ineligible to serve on judicial panels.

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, 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.

Peers may vote Aye, Nay, or may Abstain from voting.

Abstain

Abstain.

I have no issues with the act itself, but I don't appreciate the way in which this bill made it to the Overhusen.  Pointless arguing and editing the act, all after it had moved to vote? In the future, please save the editing for beforehand, and try to keep the pointless argument to a minimum.

Aye.
While I also have issues with the constant debating of things, including this act, after they have reached voting even though the actual discussion went dead and I do see that as a major problem I don't see it as something that should oppose this bill.

Aye

While I agree that there was some disorder around this Act's passage in the Underhusen, nothing that happened violated its procedural rules, altered the outcome of the vote, or drew protests from its members, so I'm willing to accept the result as legitimate. I would hope that it would not become an issue in the Act's passage, seeing that it appears to be the first in a long string of judicial reform proposals that seems to have a shot at passage.

And with two votes for this act and two abstentions, I do declare this act has PASSED.

I'll leave this until Sunday 20th September at the latest for @Joshua Bluteisen to post.

Abstain

The Amendment Proposal will be placed on the ballot of the next regular election.