View Topic

Title
1. This act is to be cited as the Judicial Panel Amendment Act.

Amendments
2. Article III, Section 1 of the Fundamental Laws is amended to read as follows:

Upon the acceptance of a petition filed to the Storting, the Monarch is to form the Judicial Panel. A Normal Judicial Panel consists of one Peer of the Overhusen and two Skrifa of the Underhusen, with the Chief Justice being the Peer of the Overhusen. A Special Judicial Panel consists of three Citizens of the Realm that have met the requirements to sit as a Justice as established by law with the citizen having held citizenship the longest being Chief Justice. All members of a Judicial Panel must be selected randomly. The Monarch can not sit on a Judicial Panel, nor can any party to the case.

3. Article III, Section 3 of the Fundamental Laws is amended to read as follows:

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. Such an appeal is considered a final appeal, and must occur after any other appeals as permitted in law have been exhausted. This does not apply to situations covered under other sections of this Article.

4. A new Section, numbered as Section 1, is added to Article III with all following Sections renumbered as appropriate. The new Section reads as follows:

Upon the filing of a case to the Storting, a review is to be conducted to determine the Judicial Panel to occur. The procedures for which are established by the Storting. In the event that no procedure has been established, then all petitions are accepted and the panel is to be a Normal Judicial Panel, except for cases where not enough members of the Storting are available that are not parties to the case in which case a Special Judicial Panel is to be formed.

Part I of my Judicial Reform is here! This adds in two different Judicial Panels (Normal and Special) for cases. The only major change is that Special Panels have been added, and that petitions are now reviewed upon filing (and such review is up to relevant law as passed by the Storting, with none being that a Panel is immediately formed based upon the requirements set forth). It also permits the addition of additional 'appeals' prior to the appeal to the Monarch. It also rewords a few things as well, but beyond that it doesn't change much.

@Wuufu
@Wintermoot
@Aragonn
@Cinciri
@trader

for the Overhusen's convenience

@North
@Chanku
@Elbbsas
@Gabrielle

so the Underhusen may monitor citizen concerns

Thank you, Katie :]

Have we fixed the loophole where you could sue yourself?

I feel like that's a pretty valid question...but at the same time, why prevent someone from pursuing the very logical case of suing themselves?

What are some cases where one of these special panels would be used, and what happens if a selected Citizen is inactive or just doesn't want to be on a panel? The bill points to a future procedure that I'm guessing would answer these things, but I'd like to have a better understanding of what that procedure would be.

Have we fixed the loophole where you could sue yourself?

I would say it's already not allowed, however that would be more-so procedural than anything else.

What are some cases where one of these special panels would be used, and what happens if a selected Citizen is inactive or just doesn't want to be on a panel? The bill points to a future procedure that I'm guessing would answer these things, but I'd like to have a better understanding of what that procedure would be.

Special Panels would be used explicitly when there are not enough members of the Storting to comprise a Judicial Panel impartially, specifically if the case is against the Storting/one of the Houses, if the case is over a law that had been passed by that session (or if the session was comprised of primarily the same people as the session that passed it), and so on.

Additionally, things like Citizens going in active or not wanting to be on a panel is a procedural matter which would be addressed in the Procedural Code I plan on introducing. Inactive Citizens would be removed and replaced, and a Citizen could resign at any time. There would be requirements for being among the Citizens that can be selected for a Special Panel, so that this would be unlikely. So you are right when you say this would be addressed by a future act which I've been in the process of writing. 

Special Panels would be used explicitly when there are not enough members of the Storting to comprise a Judicial Panel impartially, specifically if the case is against the Storting/one of the Houses, if the case is over a law that had been passed by that session (or if the session was comprised of primarily the same people as the session that passed it), and so on.

Additionally, things like Citizens going in active or not wanting to be on a panel is a procedural matter which would be addressed in the Procedural Code I plan on introducing. Inactive Citizens would be removed and replaced, and a Citizen could resign at any time. There would be requirements for being among the Citizens that can be selected for a Special Panel, so that this would be unlikely. So you are right when you say this would be addressed by a future act which I've been in the process of writing.

If a case was brought against the Storting, and it wanted to tip the scales in its favor, it could simply change the procedural rules to either allow it to judge the case itself as a normal panel. Because of possibilities like that, I would recommend adding a provision to the amendment that changes to the procedures take effect the term after they're passed, so they can't be changed to apply to a current case.

And because of things like this, I think we need to see the procedural piece before we vote on the amendment piece. We need to see the whole package and how it will work together.