Constitution Review Part 3 of 10 - JUDICIARY AND VIOLATION OF CONSTITUIONAL TERMS

[3.1] The AIN Judiciary will be a neutral entity that works alongside the executive to maintain order and hold violators of the constitution or union law accountable.
[3.11] The AIN Judiciary can be used for role-playing or to solve violations of the constitution.
[3.12] A distinction of such must be made by the prosecutor and approved by the ACCJ.
[3.2] The AIN Judiciary will consist of:
[3.21] The AIN Court Chief of Justice – a permanent and elected position.
[3.21.1] The ACCJ must remain neutral at all times.
[3.21.2] The nation of the ACCJ must become neutral, not participate in any military alliance (save for protection by another nation) and must not engage in any wars.
[3.22] The plaintiff/prosecutor – a role taken by the first or most qualified person to refer the case to the ACCJ.
[3.23] The defendant – called up by the plaintiff/prosecutor.
[3.23.1] The defendant must attend a non role-play session of court or else they will surrender their right to present their evidence.
[3.24] The jury – made up of all other participating MEMBER STATES and ASSOCIATE members who will deliberate on the findings of the court.
[3.24.2] The jury will hold a session on Skype along with the ACCJ and the plaintiff/prosecutor to discuss the course of action to take when a defendant is found guilty.
[3.24.3] The jury and only the jury will vote on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
[3.24.3.1] In the event of a hung jury, the ACCJ will be given a vote.
[3.25] The defendant may appeal up to a week after the judgement and the process will repeated.
[3.25.1] A case may only be appealed once.
[3.26] The President or Vice-President may serve a jury or as a plaintiff but may not be the ACCJ, the judiciary must remain separate from the executive.

DEBATE OPEN FOR FOUR DAYS

I don't understand the meaning of the point:

[3.21] The AIN Court Chief of Justice – a permanent and elected position.

My best guess is: the Chief Justice (I recommend deleting the 'of') is elected once and stays in office until he steps down (at a time of his choosing), at which time a new Chief Justice will be elected.

yes Zack has the right meaning. Does this need further clarification?

no, thanks guys.

I think there needs to be a clause on conflict of interest...
I think its fine and dandy to say that they should remain neutral but in all reality we know that isn't always the way it happens.. so i think a recusal clause would be handy.
Also i think an associate justice would probably be a good idea.

I like the part about the position being elected but outside of the normal election process as it brings the position more into reality - similar to how the position is in the USA supreme court.

The elections will always be done all at once, to save time and get a new Government in asap. It would become complicated otherwise.
I think the nearest we would get to having different times for elections of positions would be that we have one voted on every day or so during the election period, to spread it out.

No wat i meant was that it could be elected at the same time but that the person who is elected to chief justice is then permanently it till they retire or resign so the next election might not happen at the same time as the next elections...

and that the CJ shouldn't hold any other position at the same time.

I don't really know where to put this, but in light of the recent events with Fornax, I think we should put in something about Genocide, like the UN's Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

bonythonboi wrote:No wat i meant was that it could be elected at the same time but that the person who is elected to chief justice is then permanently it till they retire or resign so the next election might not happen at the same time as the next elections...

That sounds like the kind of position that was created for Nate, the Head of Administrators to me. I think the Chief Justice should be elected at the same time as everyone else, every six months. To me, that idea of the one-time elected sounds slightly authoritarian, maybe even dictatorial.

I agree with Thomas. It should be elected like every other ministries.

The point of it is not meant to be dictatorial at all in the slightest. Its how judges are appointed in the UK and Australia and the US. Its meant to keep the seperation of the executive and judiciary a more or less permanent one. Its designed that way to avoid a repeat of what happened last time. It removes the office of Chief Justice from the political realm of the union by taking them away from campaigning for their re-election. So they can be truly independent and impartial.

Maybe one way to alleviate your concerns is to give the CJ a term limit. and a longer period in office like one yr instead of 6 months. that way the election of a new CJ would occur every second election. and not be out of kilter so much with the rest of the union. and once completed that 1 yr term u cannot be re-elected straight away.

I totally agree with Jo, but this reform is entirely about compromise and what people really want.

I propose that we maintain permanent terms for the CJ but in addition extend the power of a vote of no confidence by a majority of member states to include the CJ. This way if any funny business is expected that person will be forced to resign. (This will be detailed in Section 4 which covers the same aspect for the executive).

The idea behind having this as a permanent position, is the fact that the CJ needs to be good at what they do, mature, neutral and responsible - a permanent postion enables this to be carried out as in the clauses to section [3.21] the member's nation and member must be militarily and diplomatically neutral whereas in ministerial positions this is not the case and not so much experience or knowledge in the particular ministry is required, just the ability to assist in running it. Think of it as the speaker of the House of Commons - of which influenced the reformed position,he is neutral, unlateral and permanent and yet very little controvesy is caused by this [please, exclude Micheal Martin - see VOC]

Bump wats happening with this ?
is this going to voting ?

I'm also intrigued as to whether this section will go to voting soon, since it's been a week since the last comment on it.

As long as everyone agrees upon not amending [3.21] this will go to voting later today

I think thats fair...

Okay.

voting open

Voted.

voted

voted

voted

3 more votes needed.