Election Results for CDS

[josjoha]

Pat, Elections are to be credible in the mind of the People. The RA and SC together are 'the minority with the power,' they are potentially (in the system as such, I'm not talking about persons ok ?) all under doubt. The general public can not be expected to know or be able to have trust in what people said that has happened, the people are too far removed from election counting (which is something that a group/council model changes too btw). Person A says this, B says that, C says another thing. The way to solve it is then to toss it all in the bin and do it again, this time under a watchful eye by the people.

The problem with the CDS system is compounded in that the SC has a role in the elections itself. That means that it can not be the judge over them also ? The 'Dean' of the SC is involved in the judicial decisions, correct ? Or is it excluded from this particular issue, because it is implicated. Is that enough for the SC to become unbiased, considering the close relationship between the Dean of the SC and the SC ?

I have suggested before that the Chancelor has the role in the elections, rather then the SC, but maybe it should be someone else. If i recall correctly the Dean is involved in the elections, correct ? The Dean is involved in the rolls. It seems to be a flaw in the system, unless you legislate into being a special 'election court,' which can not be the RA (because potentially involved in the election problems, and coming to power through them potentially, thus not unbiased), can not the be Chancelor (same, implicated in the actions and subjected to them, therefore not unbiased as a judge), as said can not be the SC (the Dean is involved, the Dean and the SC have a close knit relationship). The only available source then is the People at large at the moment ? Maybe one could legislate into being a special election for such a court (which is far too much work for this problem) to oversee that election, but then you would be electing that at another election rather then the one under scruteny.

It is notable that the people have organized a protest asking for new elections. There was a counter-demonstration staffed by one man. The count of that vote was therefore 16 to 1 to have new elections by "the people". Note that the People may be wrong per the letter of the Constitution how the election went, but all the doubt about it may have caused the people to decide they don't trust it anymore, whatever anyone says. It isn't so much about being correct anymore, as about the credibility of the mandate; the people have no hope/chance to come to the bottom of the election how it went (in general, not just this election, but all general elections in the world on the neo-Greek factions model). The call is then "whatever, we don't care anymore even if it was ok, let's just toss it in the bin and start with a clean slate all having the same chance again, then we will see who wins and we will roll with that." Safety valve of democracy: re-elections.

Beathans idea is great for this, just everyone dump their mandate at the next by-elections: easy to do, a month isn't long and if the new RA doesn't conduct 'extreme' policies (because of its injured mandate) I don't see the problem for them bridging the time to it, for the sake of there being a Government. The point is to end the bickering about the elections by doing it again. Once it is done again everything about it is smoothed over.

In general the SC must be cut out of any procedural roles, because it is already the judge over them all. A related problem is that the Chancelor is allowed the power to block access of citizens to the courts (I was told the Chancelor blocked access to the court of a citizen "because the case did not seem credible"), which is not in line with the duty of prosecution because it is a citizen versus citizens or citizen prosecuting the Government case, rather then the Government deciding to yes/no prosecute someone. Note that a not-prosecuted suspect can still go to the court to contest not being prosecuted, at least that is how it should be. Another related problem is that the RA can impeach the SC at whim. The separation of powers, checks and balances, is a chaos in the CDS ? Please correct me if I didn't understand these procedures/practices.
- SC judges its own actions ?
- Chancelor is required to rule what cases are heard ?
- SC conducts elections ? It can not judge them anymore then, when there is a problem then there is no judge.
- RA can impeach the SC, while the SC is the impeaching judges over the RA ?
It doesn't work that way, I would think.
Better:
> SC does not judge its own actions, ever, not about anything. How can it be unbiased ?
> Chancelor can never block someone's case in court, although it might decide not to prosecute someone for an offense if it is given the enforcement role. *)
> RA can not impeach its own judges, RA can only have a marginal role in appointing judges.

regards,
josjoha

*) Uh oh, the SC seems to have rolled with that ... now what ? I do not fault the Chancelor for this, the problem is that the Chancelor should not be given this task to begin with; once it had been given the Chancelor had to act on it presumably.

[Delia Lake]

A related problem is that the Chancelor is allowed the power to block access of citizens to the courts (I was told the Chancelor blocked access to the court of a citizen "because the case did not seem credible")

There is no mechanism whatsoever, legal or otherwise, for a Chancellor or any elected official or any other citizen for that matter to block any citizen's access to the SC. Any citizen can petition the SC with a claim or request for review and finding.

Here is the procedure for making a petition with the SC. A copy of this procedure can also be found on a notecard in a book in the Chamber behind the SC Hearing Room on the ground level floor of the Praetorium. In the near future it should also be published in About the SC on the new CDS Portal, a section that has not yet been populated in the Portal migration.

In order for the SC to begin action on an item, a CDS citizen must file a petition with the Dean.

Any CDS citizen may file a petition

Petitions may be of two types.

A. A petition challenging the legality of legislation

B. A petition alleging fault in the actions of a CDS citizen or government official. Absent written consent of both the petitioner and respondent, the SC lacks standing to address disputes between individuals which do not stem from existing CDS code or covenants.

A petition of type A must include -
*Reference to the particular act being challenged.
*An explanation of why the petitioner believes the act to be unconstitutional

A Petition of type B must include
* The identity (avatar) of the alleged transgressor(s)
* The code or covenant that is alleged to have been violated.
* The remedy sought

Type A petitions shall be made public immediately. When a Petition of type B is filed, a copy shall immediately be forwarded to the alleged transgressor(s). They shall have 5 days to submit a written response to the petition. At the end of the five day period, the petition and any response(s) shall be published.

Delia Lake
SC

[josjoha]

Doing the unthinkable, reading the Constitution on these vital questions (just kidding) ... first glancing through it I happened to encounter this:

Section 6 – Legislative Process and Veto

A vote in the RA is a simple majority vote of representative seats. Constitutional amendments require a 2/3 vote.

and then:

Section 7 – Powers of the RA
(...)
The RA can amend the constitution with a 2/3 vote.

I think either of the two is probably best dropped, because they say the same thing. If one wanted to change these mechanisms, one would have more of a hairy problem to deal with; by oversight one might even miss one of the two (however unlikely). They do say the same thing right ?

The problems noted where:
1. The Constitution should be changed by the people, not within the orbit of "the ruling groups" exclusively.
2. The RA can not impeach its own judges, which is the SC, because they can be the ones under indictment.
3. The RA can not have powers to appoint judges over itself, or at least not by majority, because they could have any ruling they wanted that way, and where is the recourse ? At the high-court one is at the end of the legal process, even by law, principle and convention (in regular nations at least, fwik).

My goal is to collect the 'offending' Constitutional parts, and propose rectification for them. Moving through the Constitution top-down ... (adding comments outside of these goals too). To make it easier to skip through I tried to make the proposals in bold.

PREAMBLE

All branches of the government are bound to serve the public before themselves and to uphold the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, Founding Philosophy,

I propose a pointer to what this 'founding philosophy' is ? I note that the pre-ambule is more of a Constitutional law, an article, then a pre-ambule. In a pre-ambule one could for example say something like "On the [date] in full freedom and with the brightest foresight we where awarded by our lives and good fortune, we conveiced our community and lives to be guided by the ideal of having a Government for and by the people, who will serve our common interests. We duly ratified, after careful deliberation, the first draft of the document you are now reading. Correct me if wrong, but that seems to be a pre-ambule, some general statements not necessarily a law that is binding on someone. I'd say the current pre-ambule would make a fine article in the Constitution though, and is of course also good as a pre-ambule (since who cares)."

Any citizen who is eligible to vote, at the time of nomination, may become a candidate by declaring themselves by a message to the Dean of the Scientific Council, within the time set by the Scientific Council for such nominations.

This is where the SC gets a role in the elections, about which they then later have to pass judgement (as at the moment is even occuring !). Judge one cannot be over ones own actions, in a presumed unbiased way. So I propose that this is changed to someone else "by declaring themselves by a message in public spot XYZ, ABC time before the elections" for example ?

(I like the article about the Chancelor (although I'm not a fan of presidential systems, preferring the parliamentary mechanism as it is called, coalition Government/'executive'; CDS might be too small to have a 3 head executive council, though... this is a matter of taste and not a problem in the Constitution.))

Article III – The Philosophic Branch

Section 1 – The Scientific Council

The Scientific Council (SC) is a self-selected meritocracy. Its governmental role is to interpret and enforce the constitution. Its service roll (ed. note: sic) is to resolve citizen disputes and moderate user forums and events.

Section 2 – The Scientific Council Body

The SC is comprised of Professors, Chairs, and a single SC Dean. Professors are chosen at the recommendation of current members based on demonstrated skill and desire to uphold the constitution without bias. Chairs are nominated by the Dean and approved by a simple majority vote. There are a maximum of nine Chairs available, with the Dean receiving one. Members of the SC can be voted out with a 2/3 majority.

The self-perpetuating nature of the SC seems problematic, because it is only another branch of the system and therefore eventually has to be held accountible by the people. Beathan was already working on this ... The power of the SC to impeach other branches of Government seems to be a due power of the SC, imho; since it is a court.

The Philosophic branch may veto or rewrite and resubmit a bill or constitutional amendment if it is in violation of any of the founding documents.

The power test laws against the Constitution seems ok too, the power to approve anything but minor changes to the Constitution seems to be a little bit problematic because it is the basis for their rulings itself ? A way through the People should help with this, it would need to be added somewhere as a article/section. Changing the Constitution is a major thing, so I think maybe it deserves a top spot and its own article ? I don't think the SC should have the power to block changes to the Constitution, as that could block the system at the SC. The SC rules based on the Constitution, but the People form the Constitution. What if the SC is deciding on a Constitutional interpretation the people do not want ? Then they change the Constitution. But what if the SC can block that again ? That is the block.

Another view is that the CDS is a fixated democracy, fixated in the SC interpretation and guidance of Constitutional and other law. I'd say that is an extensive power of the SC, one which might not be envisioned ?

Section 7 – Powers of the RA

The RA can seek impeachment of members of the Philosophic branch by initiating an impeachment hearing.

Is this the place where the RA can "at whim" (as Gwyn said) impeach the SC, without having to go to the SC for such a hearing ? Does "impeachment hearing" refer to a hearing in the RA itself by the RA ? I didn't see "impeachment hearing" further defined in the Constitution as something special in the RA itself, or did I miss something (sorry in that case). I think that this part should be dropped: the RA can not have the power to impeach the whole SC because the SC is its judge. Perhaps it could impeach one member in the SC for example, that may be a more reasonable power, and come to think of it would give the RA over the course of time the power to change the SC - provided someone once impeached can not again be in the SC (for how long ?).

Section 7 – Powers of the RA

In regards to the Philosophic branch:
The RA provides a vote of confidence on candidates to the Philosophic branch.

It might not have to be changed in the RA can no longer impeach the SC, provided such approval of new SC persons does not give it the power to put more people in the SC then there are already in it, altering the outcome of a trial. If the RA can no longer impeach the SC, then the existing members of the SC could vote away the new judges proposed by the RA. The problem is worse when the RA can impeach the SC, because then there not being an SC, anyone whom wants to be SC and secures the confidence vote by the RA becomes the new SC. A safety guard might say the RA can only approve one SC candidate at the time, to prevent them from in a flash approving 30 new SC persons, who then vote away the previously existing SC, denying them the power to vote away those 30 new members because the RA defeated the SC in the speed race towards what effectively would be impeachment. Infinite possible size of the SC:

There are a maximum of nine Chairs available, with the Dean receiving one.

Chairs are delineated from 'professors' in the article, both have a different procedure for being activated. Hence there may be 9 chairs, but an unlimited amount of professors ? That could be a Constitutional gap allowing the RA to gain control over its own judges. The "self appointed meritocracy" element strengthens this, as the new group to be flash-approved can claim to be 'self appointed.' A solution could be that there is a maximum of 9 places in the whole SC, chairs plus professors. ? There are a maximum of nine positions available in the SC, with the Dean receiving one. ?

Article IV – Factions
Section 1 – Requirements
Section 2 – The Faction Body
Section 3 – The Faction Leader

Aren't these requirenments infringing on the free association of individuals as they see fit ? A party how I would like it for example would be unconstitutional from day 1, because it would not have a leader, and may not want to conform to other requirenments, or submit to the idea that the goal is to debate and so on. On the other hand I can understand that only 'more serious' parties would have their own forum place, but that is like an additional privilige for the well behaved. To say "a party has a leader" or 'exists to debate" seem like Constitutional laws to be enforced. Perhaps it can be rewarded "factions that conform to .... leader .... debate .... list of demands .... notify the dean ... are granted their own forum," thus leaving other parties although without the privilige of a forum, at least free to exist without becoming illegal.

Article VI – Citizenship

Unfortunately I am not intelligent enough to read that, perhaps it can be reworded to accomodate dummies like undersigned : ); maybe I should just invest more time ... seems pretty complicated though doesn't it ?

Back to the original goal:
1. The Constitution should be changed by the people, not within the orbit of "the ruling bodies" exclusively.
> Article to be added somewhere ? Beathan is working on it already.

2. The RA can not impeach its own judges, which is the SC, because they can be the ones under indictment.
> Article to be changed to only 1 SC judge, for example, or dropped altogether ? Or the change to take effect only for the next RA ? ........ ?

3. The RA can not have powers to appoint judges over itself.
> Article to be changed to only appoint one or a few judges, not a majority ? New changes only take effect for the next RA ? ....... ? This problem is reduced/solved when the RA can not impeach the SC anymore.

I find the Constitution pretty well written (style), it is clear and concise ! It also seems to have a fair bit of checks and balances in it already. Maybe with a few changes around the edges, plugging a few gaps, it could be pretty good compared to other real-world nations; and at the same time its own unique system, which is rather awesome.

best regards,
josjoha

I hope that made sense, I'm sure I made some mistakes, but try to be constructive.

P.S.

Delia, indeed, that is the point. A citizen claims that her case was not heard by the SC, and if I recall correctly the Chancelor was given the de-facto responsibility of judging of whether the case would reach the court, which I protested. What has to happen now ? I am not the court, I do not want to judge the case, only prefer there to be a proper trial and saying that the Chancelor (the executive) can not be allowed to block access to the judicairy (the SC). Perhaps this issue is old news now, because I have heard the case was settled out of court (yay!).

[Delia Lake]

In addition to the procedures to petition the SC, citizens have the right to request arbitration of disputes.

NL 5-20 Arbitration Act

This act enables and regulates arbitration in the CDS

Any parties to a dispute, which could be heard by a CDS Court, may agree to resolve their case by arbitration. Parties may also agree in advance that future disputes of a specified sort will be resolved by arbitration rather than a CDS Court.
Arbitration may take any form and procedure agreed between the parties.
The agreement to arbitrate and the process the arbitration will take must be put in writing by the parties when the agreement is made.
Once parties agree to arbitration they and the CDS Courts must treat the arbitration agreement as binding. A court may only reconsider the arbitration if:

(a) The arbiter did not follow the agreed procedure; or

(b) a party can show that they suffered substantial injustice as a result of a serious flaw in the arbitration process.
No arbitration agreement may:

(a) Give the arbiter power to banish a party or impose any sanction reserved to a branch of the CDS government, or
(b) Effect any impeachment jurisdiction
An arbitration agreement may provide for the result to be appealed to a CDS Court.

[Delia Lake]

Delia, indeed, that is the point. A citizen claims that her case was not heard by the SC, and if I recall correctly the Chancelor was given the de-facto responsibility of judging of whether the case would reach the court, which I protested. What has to happen now ? I am not the court, I do not want to judge the case, only prefer there to be a proper trial and saying that the Chancelor (the executive) can not be allowed to block access to the judicairy (the SC).

No one can give the responsibility of judging a case, de facto or otherwise, to a Chancellor. No one has that power in the CDS. No one has the right or power to block a CDS citizen from petitioning the CDS SC, period. If a petition is formally filed then it is the responsibility of the SC to handle that petition.

[Callipygian]

...

Delia, indeed, that is the point. A citizen claims that her case was not heard by the SC, and if I recall correctly the Chancelor was given the de-facto responsibility of judging of whether the case would reach the court, which I protested. What has to happen now ? I am not the court, I do not want to judge the case, only prefer there to be a proper trial and saying that the Chancelor (the executive) can not be allowed to block access to the judicairy (the SC). Perhaps this issue is old news now, because I have heard the case was settled out of court (yay!).

Hi jos!

I am not sure I understand why this is (or was) a situation. As Delia points out, this citizen can write a notecard with a petition and send it to the Dean. She doesn't need the Chancellor's permission, or anyone else's. Since I don't know who you are talking about, or what the situation was it's hard to figure out how access to the court could be blocked, and I am not asking you to provide that information. Perhaps the Chancellor involved gave incorrect information about how to proceed, perhaps the Chancellor involved said 'I dont think the SC would deal with that", perhaps the citizen involved said 'I am so angry I am going to the SC with this!' and the Chancellor, with world weary cynicism and sarcasm said 'Good luck with that!''

Lots of perhapses in there and that it the problem with hearsay: people share the information they feel is important, or that supports their position, and omit other parts intentionally or accidentally. So the information given may or may not be accurate and then may be understood clearly, or misunderstood. I think this happened previously around past history of the SC and Ceasar?

I think examining the documents CDS 'lives by' is a good thing. I think attempts to clarify them so that they are easily understandable is an excellent thing, especially in a group that has many who do not have English as their first language. I think looking at ways to make those documents easy to find is also excellent. I just don't think using vague examples based on he said/she said as the basis for those discussions of the documents and how they could be better really works in a public forum.

Calli

oops..editing to add that I am glad to hear that whomever was involved, a resolution was reached

[Ceasar Xigalia]

Lots of perhapses in there and that it the problem with hearsay: people share the information they feel is important, or that supports their position, and omit other parts intentionally or accidentally. So the information given may or may not be accurate and then may be understood clearly, or misunderstood. I think this happened previously around past history of the SC and Ceasar?

Calli

Just a bit concerned that you quote the SC and me in a vague way that seems to be the very thing you want to avoid!

I would prefer you either quote accurately, or leave out refence to me.

Thanks Ceasar

[josjoha]

Hi Calli,

I am not trying to discuss the case itself, only the principle that the executive should never be able to block someone their access to the judiciary, something that you and Delia also agree with. I have argued that this is already seemingly the law in the CDS, because it seems a stretch to me to interpret this:

Article II – The Executive

Section 2 – Powers of the Chancellor

The Chancellor of CDS shall, subject to the laws of CDS, have the power:
(...)
(g) to enforce such regulations in accordance with law.

... to include such power. From what I have heard, which was seemingly out of the first hand, the Chancelor either blocked it mistaken in the belief the Chancelor has such a duty, or perhaps the SC decided not to hear the case and then the Chancelor might have said something like he concurred with that opinion - which would be something different. The SC might then in return have hid behind the Chancelor back not to have to hear the case. Another possibility is that the case was heard, but the contesting party thought the hearing did not qualify as a hearing. I notice that in the case of Tyrant vs Rosie, Tyrant was banned but not granted a hearing (seeing the post on it just now) ? There seems to be some cause for concern that hearsay about the SC not conducting hearings as it should may be true, and that perhaps an incorrect interpretation about the role of the Chancelor might then also be at play (?). The problem is difficult because it implicates the SC itself, which is the body of recourse (the court). Perhaps because the SC failed to hold a hearing as it should, a request was aimed at the Chancelor to 'enforce the law' against that, to force a hearing, which the Chancelor then perhaps was unwilling to engage in. Such a stance is probably possible in general regarding what powers the Executive has (can a citizen force the Executive to prosecute someone, I guess not), although if there was no hearing then it may have been an erroneous decision after all. All this is of course wild speculation. But whether true or not, it is great for illustrating the way the laws work or don't work. What would we do in all of these cases, if that situation was the one occuring ! It is a bonanza of legal joy, isn't it.

How do we 'prosecute' an unwilling SC that does not hear cases ... we would need to impeach them. But how, as I have argued just before the RA can not be granted the power to impeach the SC, because the RA may be the party under indictment by the SC for impeachment itself. My personal choice in this issue was that only the People can impeach the high court (http://www.law4.org/law.html#law.court.removal).

We certainly seem to have a whole bunch of fundamental problems in the CDS right now:
- Constitutional ammendments passed during an election, bringing up the issue who should change the Constitution.
- The SC seemingly not hearing cases (Tyrant case ? Cleo vs Pip case perhaps ?), but what to do if the SC refuses to do cases ? Brings up the matter of how the SC is appointed.
- Will the new SC candidates be approved in short order, if they are not then what to do about it ?
- The SC is implicated in the elections because the Dean has a vital role, yet now it is also the body to pass judgement on its own actions, that is not right (no appearance of unbiased judges).

It must be the best time in CDS, because perhaps some fundamental problems can be resolved in the Constitution !

best regards,
josjoha

PS It was not about Ceasar. I don't care about the case itself but am happy that it is acknowledged that the executive can not block SC cases, and the SC has to hear these cases, that this is the accepted law. I do care about the principled problem of what to do about an unwilling SC to hear cases, considering it can not be impeached by the RA especially not at whim as now is the law.

[Callipygian]

Lots of perhapses in there and that it the problem with hearsay: people share the information they feel is important, or that supports their position, and omit other parts intentionally or accidentally. So the information given may or may not be accurate and then may be understood clearly, or misunderstood. I think this happened previously around past history of the SC and Ceasar?

Calli

Just a bit concerned that you quote the SC and me in a vague way that seems to be the very thing you want to avoid!

I would prefer you either quote accurately, or leave out refence to me.

Thanks Ceasar

My apologies Ceasar!

The thread was A Worrying Question, found here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 8&start=15
The comments I am referring to start at post #15 I think, up through post #20.

I was attempting not to be vague, by referring to an actual example, and clearly failed

Calli

[Ceasar Xigalia]

Calli

Thanks, now I understand the context.

Ceasar

[Delia Lake]

There is no possible case, actual or hypothetical, in the CDS as its laws stand today where anyone, Executive, RA or citizen to block anyone from petitioning the CDS SC.

From what I have heard, which was seemingly out of the first hand, the Chancelor either blocked it mistaken in the belief the Chancelor has such a duty,

Whatever might have been heard, it simply is not possible for a Chancellor to do this. No one has the power in SL to prevent the dropping of a notecard by someone else a third someone else or on their profile. That kind of blocking capability simply doesn't exist.

[Bromo Ivory]

There is no possible case, actual or hypothetical, in the CDS as its laws stand today where anyone, Executive, RA or citizen to block anyone from petitioning the CDS SC.

From what I have heard, which was seemingly out of the first hand, the Chancelor either blocked it mistaken in the belief the Chancelor has such a duty,

Whatever might have been heard, it simply is not possible for a Chancellor to do this. No one has the power in SL to prevent the dropping of a notecard by someone else a third someone else or on their profile. That kind of blocking capability simply doesn't exist.

I thought this thread is taking a turn for the strange.

I have heard complaints that the Dean of the SC has been unresponsive to petitions. Of course there are all kinds of conspiratorial theories as to why, but that aside, I am not sure there is a specific requirement for the SC to review petitions.

As I will likely file one to get a clarification on when candidates can declare, withdraw, redeclare, etc - hat the process is and procedure (and if any feedback in required) - I'd like to know it would be taken seriously. So I am interested in the power the Dean has in order to personally ignore these requests? The Supreme Court in many cases has the authority to refuse a case - though by the time it gets to them, it usually has been ruled on several times in the court system already so has verdicts in place. The SC is both first and last resort for citizens with petitions.

[Beathan]

The Supreme Court in many cases has the authority to refuse a case - though by the time it gets to them, it usually has been ruled on several times in the court system already so has verdicts in place. The SC is both first and last resort for citizens with petitions.

I know of no legitimate court system where the court of first resort (the place a matter is originally brought for consideration) can refuse to hear any matter brought to it. However, early or "summary" dismissal of clearly groundless cases is an important safety valve.

That said, I think we need two things -- 1. a requirement that the SC hear all cases brought to it, even if just to dismiss them for stated reasons and 2. an appeal process. With the SC acting as court of first resort, I am not sure that there is a clear avenue for appeal. However, I note that in most cities and counties in the US with which I am aware (in the 5 states where I am licensed) land use matters are generally heard by a hearing examiner (land use court) and then appealed to the city or county counsel. We could set the RA up to hear appeals from the SC.

I do worry about checks and balances, however. The RA would be hearing cases on its own legislation. Of course, vetoes should not be subject to appeal -- so the RA can't trump a veto by the SC through the appeal process. However, if an unconstitutional act is not vetoed (possibly because no one realized it was unconstitutional), but later determined to be so by the SC on proper petition, it might be problematic if the RA heard the appeal (although, maybe not, given our planned for and built-in turn-over on the RA).

Beathan

[josjoha]

Hi Beathan,

We could set the RA up to hear appeals from the SC.

The SC (high court) rules in the case of impeachment of the RA, after which (full impeachment of the RA) new elections would be written out (of course, per principle of democratic Government, law or no law, it would be made the law). This is a proper mechanism of power: eventually, if the high court (SC) destroyes the RA, it goes to the highest court: the People. You can not have the RA - at least not in general - be the appeal from the SC. That would destroy the separation of powers (checks and balances), conflating ultimate Judicial and legislative powers in the RA (which becomes absurd in the case of impeachment for the RA).

CDS Constitution:

Section 6 – Ratification of bills passed by the Representative Assembly

Chairs of the SC will ratify bills passed by the Representative Assembly by simple majority vote and may resubmit the bill with modifications for vote.
The SC shall act as the Court of Common Jurisdiction, with the Dean of the SC appointing Chairs of the SC to hear specific trials, under the Code of Procedure previously passed by the RA, with any appeals heard by the full SC.

It seems that in the case of 'bills' (assuming that a 'bill' can be anything, certainly in the USA it seems that it can be anything these days ?) the Dean appoints two or more Chairs (but not professors, because professors where clearly in their unique category in the SC I guess) for a first court case on an issue regarding the Constitutionality of a 'bill' by the RA (since that is the title of the section). The appeal would then be for the whole SC including the professors and the Dean. However this all says nothing about a citizen trying to reach the court, it is about ratifying bills of the RA. I wonder if the second part of this article was meant to be about any cases, such as citizen versus citizen, or citizen versus RA ? Quote: "The SC shall act as the Court of Common Jurisdiction". That sounds like more then ratifying bills from the RA. Should it be in its own section instead, or should the section title change to reflect that it is about more then ratifying 'bills' from the RA ?

If it is about citizen cases (factual court, appeal court (which rules about whether the factual court followed correct procedures, it is not a review of the content of the case - at least how I understand it so far, in real life), then it seems that the appeal is done by the whole of the SC (which I think is a fair solution, and would be the end of the judicial process.)

However:

Section 7 – Hearings and Trials

Hearings and trials not involving government officials will be overseen by a single Professor. (...)

Apparently section 6 was not about citizen vs citizen or citizen vs RA/Government cases, because section 7 already is about it, stating a Professor (not a chair) will 'oversee' the case (does overseeing include judging ?). I don't see a reference to an appeal process yet. I also don't see a process of appointing which professor will hear the case. The previous section has the Dean appointing the chair to hear a case of ratification of a 'bill,' the fact that this is absent here seems to indicate the Dean does not do it here.

I propose sections 6 and 7 are harmonized. Perhaps the distinction professors/chairs should be dropped from the Constitution as an unnecessary complication. It seems fair that a court case is held by several judges and the highest appeal by all judges. There is also the possibility of having an appeal court and a supreme court case done by the whole SC, because the appeal court case would be about trying to destroy the ruling of the first factual court case by claiming it did not follow correct procedure, while the supreme court case would tend to be about the interpretation of the law. I'd say - given the small size of the CDS - it may be a solution to have both type cases done by the same body, the whole SC.

Example: citizen A complains about intruding prim from citizen B.
The case is brought before the next member of the SC, who are on a rotating schedule for cases.
Citizen B is put in the right, whith the judges (this being the CDS) actually going to the scene.
Citizen A appeals the ruling by claiming that one of the judges already worked on the case just prior, or that the evidence was tampered with, or whatever.
The whole SC reviews the case, a final verdict is passed and for example the case is destroyed and a retrial ordered. Citizen A and B again go to the court as if it was the first time.
Alternatively the SC upholds the prior ruling.

Either case the citizen A could still attempt to make it a supreme-court case about the interpretation of the law itself, for example arguing that a prim is a matter of 'speech' and therefore an intrusion on its parcel is to be ruled under the rules/traditions for sound intrusion or whatever the case may be (credible or a bit fantastical). Such a court case is then different in nature, but could - I suppose - also be ruled by the whole SC (given the small size of the CDS). Both type cases represent an end in a judicial process, appeal case is the end of a case itself, and the supreme court is the end on the interpretation of the law as it exists at that moment; hence ruling by the whole SC seems reasonable.

I hope this makes sense, best regards,
josjoha

PS Even if these things are already properly legislated in laws, it may still be a good idea to have a clearly written Constitution about these issues (?). Have I missed something ?

[Beathan]

Jos,

I know that's what the procedure states. It was intended to have individual members of the SC hear cases, which appeals to the full SC. The SC has not operated that way. Essentially, they have skipped the original trial process completely. Again, if the SC is not going to operate as it should, denying citizens both a trial right (in some cases) and an appeal right (in all cases), then we need to change the procedure to one that enforces and guarantees these rights.

Beathan