How do we want it set up?

Serenel wrote:That is a good question, and one i believe the Legislature should debate and pass a Act on when it is established.

there are many other methods then seeking another regions judge that can be dealt with internally.

Perhaps that will be one of the first matters discussed by the Assembly...

This would be an instance where perhaps a Deputy Justice, or the like, could be explored.

River wrote:And if it involves a high profile case, there is no way that an accused can get a fair and impartial trial. The defendant may desire to bring Consul from the outside to defend him here, regardless of the circumstances. I would have my friend represent me were I to be charged with a crime.

You will find that as TDS becomes more active and involved in the interregional affairs of NS, there will be more interaction with people outside of the region.

As I said before, I think 'outside' help would only be beneficial to TDS, provided that it was carefully administered under our own legal authority...

the role of a justice is to be impartial and unbiased as humanly possible in any senerio and take the case based on the merits before him or her.

i would hope through interviews with the founder, and an examination of the Assembly only such individuals would be able to gain the position.

however if a justice is thought to be partial, or biased, and they do not recuse themselves, it is a matter for the General Assembly to look into, and seek to either Impeach the justice, or displine them in some way.

personally i do not like the idea of someone from outside the region coming into the region and telling us what are laws are, it makes no sense to me. We should be a region unto ourselves, an holden to no other entity or thing.

That is why I said that any outside help would have to "operate under our legal authority".

We wouldn't be asking them to write law, but to impartially judge a case on its merits and apply the letter of OUR laws.

no, you are correct, they wouldnt be writting law in the normal sense.

however through judicial review they could either strike down one of our laws, they will set precedent with their decision, they could create common law through their decision.

even though the courts are 'passive' they create regulation and laws through their actions and decisions when something is brought to them.

Serenel wrote:no, you are correct, they wouldnt be writting law in the normal sense.

however through judicial review they could either strike down one of our laws, they will set precedent with their decision, they could create common law through their decision.

even though the courts are 'passive' they create regulation and laws through their actions and decisions when something is brought to them.

That is, indeed, a VERY special consideration. As you said, court decisions create precedent and in turn, common law. Essentially we are losing national sovereignty in the sense that we are allowing "foreign" nations to create our common law through court decisions.

I am not necessarily saying I am for/against this, but it is certainly a point of concern.

This is why our Legislature needs to write Legislation that is iron clad and bullet proof. If an outsider can find due cause through the fault of the letter of law, we should be able to find it first.

River wrote:This is why our Legislature needs to write Legislation that is iron clad and bullet proof. If an outsider can find due cause through the fault of the letter of law, we should be able to find it first.

That is probably why we should refrain from seeking excessive 'outside' assistance, at least in terms of legal authority, for awhile. At least until our law has been able to stand the test of time, if you will.

That is not to say we will not make every effort to produce the best legislation possible in our Constitution.

If you'd like, I could get the finished product vetted for holes.

River wrote:If you'd like, I could get the finished product vetted for holes.

I'm sure this document will be subject to many layers of peer review, I am certain that the finished product will be 'ironclad', as you say. I encourage criticism and input, as long as it is informed and in good faith. Further, I think an outside look / edit is never a bad thing...

I was thinking of someone who is a practicing attorney IRL and is active in NS.

every law can be interpreted from many different perspectives.

there usually is never one point of view on anything.

thats why an outsider could very easily come in, put his or her slant on something and we are left with a decision, or a precedent that isnt really organic, its artificial.

we need to stand as a region on our own merits. We rise as one, and stand as one.

foregin help is good for alot of things in this game, and i am all about making connections, but not when those connections tamper with my regions sovergin government.

River wrote:I was thinking of someone who is a practicing attorney IRL and is active in NS.

I could always have my father take a peek at the document. He practiced law for 30 some years, and I am sure he would at least be familiar with the rhetoric.

As I am sure he is not an expert on Constitutional law, he may know someone who has a keen understanding of these matters.

It was just an offer, no more, no less.

Oh, I know. I was just offering something, too. I'm sure your offer would have a higher likelihood of panning out, since my dad probably would just laugh at me if I asked him to take a look at this.

One thing that I did learn was that women are held in high regard in NS and that most guys will gladly help a girl do anything.

River wrote:One thing that I did learn was that women are held in high regard in NS and that most guys will gladly help a girl do anything.

that is explained by simple supply and demand.

Serenel wrote:

River wrote:One thing that I did learn was that women are held in high regard in NS and that most guys will gladly help a girl do anything.

that is explained by simple supply and demand.

And it keeps the language toned down quite a bit when we're around.

I sorta skimmed and didn't see much of what I though is similar to what I'm gonna post, but in my opinion,

3 judges, one big one, one small(er) one, and 1 "chief justice" appointed by leadership
I figure the biggest problem will be if the defendant, w/e, is represented fairly.

So maybe an aggressive dictator judge, a civil rights lovefest judge, and a leadership appointed

Just my 2 cents

Kingdom of Illatia wrote:I sorta skimmed and didn't see much of what I though is similar to what I'm gonna post, but in my opinion,

3 judges, one big one, one small(er) one, and 1 "chief justice" appointed by leadership
I figure the biggest problem will be if the defendant, w/e, is represented fairly.

So maybe an aggressive dictator judge, a civil rights lovefest judge, and a leadership appointed

Just my 2 cents

Hey there dude, glad to see you are posting already. I appreciate your ideas, however we are most likely going with one Chief Justice for the time being.

The main caveat being that we grant the Assembly both the power, and the task, to increase the number of Justices on the bench of the Supreme Court, and establish lower courts if necessary.

The reason it is not written into the Constitution, and likely won't be expanded in the near future, is because regional participation would have to be higher in order to facilitate a larger court system. Believe me, I would love to have a larger Supreme Court, and I am sure we will at some point. That time, however, is not now.