How do we want it set up?

I think simple but easy is the best course of action here.

i say the constitution mandates a Supreme Court, with one Justice, the Cheif Justice, who is selected by the Founder and approved by the Assembly.

then it allows the Assembly to add more justices as it sees fit, and create lower courts as it sees fit.

but that is just me, what do you guys think?

Serenel wrote: i say the constitution mandates a Supreme Court, with one Justice, the Cheif Justice, who is selected by the Founder and approved by the Assembly.

then it allows the Assembly to add more justices as it sees fit, and create lower courts as it sees fit.

but that is just me, what do you guys think?

I think the LAST thing we want is for the region to get bogged down with rivaling court systems. Perhaps the system you alluded to: Founder appoints a Chief Justice who is approved by the regional Assembly (legislature).

The Chief Justice may appoint judges as he/she sees fit, but there should be a ceiling on the size of the Supreme Court, perhaps FIVE(5) justices.

Furthermore, I don't think there should be additional courts established. One regional Supreme Court (with a max of 5 justices) should be enough, at least for the time being.

actually i was saying the Assembly would add more justice posts. not the Chief Justice.

or did you understand that and were just putting forth the idea of allowing the Chief Justice to do that?

i agree we probably will not need more then that, but i think we should allow the Assembly, if it sees fit, the freedom to create lower courts if need be with out having to go through with an amendment or something.

I see your point, and YES I did misunderstand you.

Your suggestion is more apt, however, and I do believe it would be best to have The Assembly appoint further justices, however we define that process.

Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:
I think the LAST thing we want is for the region to get bogged down with rivaling court systems. Perhaps the system you alluded to: Founder appoints a Chief Justice who is approved by the regional Assembly (legislature).

The Chief Justice may appoint judges as he/she sees fit, but there should be a ceiling on the size of the Supreme Court, perhaps FIVE(5) justices.

Furthermore, I don't think there should be additional courts established. One regional Supreme Court (with a max of 5 justices) should be enough, at least for the time being.

I prefer this

I think we should note that the REGIONAL ASSEMBLY will be appointing / approving Supreme Court Justices.

The Founder will propose a Chief Justice, who is ratified by the Assembly (legislature). Then, the Assembly appoints / elects Justices, perhaps a Supreme Court of FIVE(5).

We can determine the set number, but too many would obviously be counter-intuitive to productivity and efficiency.

well...my original intent was that there would only be one justice.

and that would be how it is written.

then lets say in the future, say 8 months down the road, the Assembly says hey...maybe there should be more then just one person interpriting our laws.

they go through the process of passing a bill that expands the court, and explains how those justices are appointed, and their tenure and such.

oh, and P.S the tenure of the Justice appointed by the Founder should be life, in my opinion.

Serenel wrote:well...my original intent was that there would only be one justice.

and that would be how it is written.

then lets say in the future, say 8 months down the road, the Assembly says hey...maybe there should be more then just one person interpriting our laws.

they go through the process of passing a bill that expands the court, and explains how those justices are appointed, and their tenure and such.

oh, and P.S the tenure of the Justice appointed by the Founder should be life, in my opinion.

I think I am beginning to see your point. Since we are writing the law right now, there is little need for a vast body to interpret them immediately. However, we should allow provisions for further appointments, at the behest of the Legislative Assembly (possible name? basic and nice).

possible name for what?

Serenel wrote:possible name for what?

Just a possible stock name for our legislature: 'Legislative Assembly'.

It's basic, definitive, and clean. I was just spit-balling.

oh, lol...shouldnt that be in the legislative discussion

umm...i was thinking General Assembly...or we could have a long official name, and then refer to it in its short name.

i.e The Official Legislature of the Free and Sovergin Assembled Nations of the Dirty South, and then just call it the legislative assembly, or the general assembly...thats just off the top of my head...like you said, spit balling.

If we go with a bicameral legislative body, we could have three (3) justices, the founder/executive power could appoint one, and then the upper and lower houses could elect their own.

Anglenburgh wrote:If we go with a bicameral legislative body, we could have three (3) justices, the founder/executive power could appoint one, and then the upper and lower houses could elect their own.

that is a very fine idea.

Indeed, although the Legislature will be filling the remaining 'Justices', regardless of how many Justices we decide on.

well not necesarrily.

the constitution, in theory would leave it up to the Assembly to decide how they would like to elect/appoint the new justicies.

so that would mean the assembly in its, daresay, infinite wisom, could use a vast variety of tools in order to accomplish their ends.

If no one else posts about this soon, i am going to guess that the way we will set up the judicial branch is with one Judge, who will be selected by our Founder, and then approved by our Legislature.

Then allow the Legislative Branch the freedom to expand the bench, and choose how to elect/appoint the new justicies.

Serenel wrote:If no one else posts about this soon, i am going to guess that the way we will set up the judicial branch is with one Judge, who will be selected by our Founder, and then approved by our Legislature.

Then allow the Legislative Branch the freedom to expand the bench, and choose how to elect/appoint the new justicies.

Seems like we are pretty much 'stuck' on this idea, for lack of a better word. I am completely okay with this method, and I don't foresee there being much difficulty arising from this. In the event of more justices being necessary, the legislature can take care of the situatoin accordingly.

I believe it would be best if the Founder/Chief Executive proposes a Chief Justice for the Assembly to approve or disapprove. Lesser justices would be appointed by the assembly for the sake of having multiple viewpoints for interpreting laws. The Court will then oversee Executive and Assembly proceedings for the purpose of ensuring that the law is upheld. The establishment of other courts is an issue best left to a later date, I believe. The Chief Justice and lesser judges should be temporary positions.

well right now, we are moving foreward with your first sentance, having the founder choose the judge and having it approved by the legislatore

and, right now we would be granting the power to the assembly, after the constitution is passed, to expand the bench when/if they feel it is necessary. At that point it would be up to the assembly how they would want that judge seledted, whether it be by election, appointment through a cheif executive, or giving it to the founder again.

as for the courts overseeing the executive and legislative, i am against that particular notion, most because courts are usually meant to be passive bodies, meaning they can not act until something is brought to their attention, because courts do not decide 'hypothetical cases'. Also in way it would make it so our entire region was 'run' by the Cheif Justice, because nothing would happen with out his say so...iunno, doesnt seem democratic to me.

what do you mean when you say the justice position should be temporary?

Serenel wrote:

what do you mean when you say the justice position should be temporary?

I am pretty sure he was referring to the policy similar to how 'Supreme Court' Justices are elected for life in the United States.

Personally I have no particular preference on whether or not the justices have 'life-terms' or not, but I think I would be more inclined to side with term limits.

hmm, well i would be opposed to term limits.

one, because it implies elections, and if there are elections a justice can not perform his duties how he is suppose to.

the justice should not do what is popular, he has to do what is right under the law. he can not be afraid that if he decides a certian case some way he may lose his election, he has to make the best choice he believes is right according to the case presented to him/her.

and if he just meant to have a term with out re-election i would be against that because why should we waste a good judge for no reason but turnover...

just my thoughts though.

Serenel wrote:hmm, well i would be opposed to term limits.

one, because it implies elections, and if there are elections a justice can not perform his duties how he is suppose to.

the justice should not do what is popular, he has to do what is right under the law. he can not be afraid that if he decides a certian case some way he may lose his election, he has to make the best choice he believes is right according to the case presented to him/her.

and if he just meant to have a term with out re-election i would be against that because why should we waste a good judge for no reason but turnover...

just my thoughts though.

Yeah, I am probably inclined to agree with that after considering what you just wrote. We don't really want the courts to become 'political', that just screams anti-democratic.

My thoughts on the court's system is that the Chief Justice be appointed by the founder for life and/or good behavior. The other two of a triumvirate bench could be appointed each by the Legislature and the Grand Assembly.

However, the caveat here is experience in NS law and court procedures, at least for the Chief Justice.

If the post of Chief Justice is not to be limited by turns, how then would the issue of a hypothetically ineffective individual be dealt with? Also, if the post of Chief Justice were nominated solely by the Founder, with the approval of the Assembly, it would not be an elected position such as Chief Executive or similar posts. This way, if a good judge would be lost to simple turnover, the Founder could nominate that the incumbent Justice remain in his position. Also, are we not approving of the idea of the Court merely monitoring the Assembly for accordance with the law, or are we leaning towards the Court waiting for an issue being brought before it?

Knights Inquisitor wrote:If the post of Chief Justice is not to be limited by turns, how then would the issue of a hypothetically ineffective individual be dealt with? Also, if the post of Chief Justice were nominated solely by the Founder, with the approval of the Assembly, it would not be an elected position such as Chief Executive or similar posts. This way, if a good judge would be lost to simple turnover, the Founder could nominate that the incumbent Justice remain in his position. Also, are we not approving of the idea of the Court merely monitoring the Assembly for accordance with the law, or are we leaning towards the Court waiting for an issue being brought before it?

We don't want to politicize the courts, so I think it works best if they are a passive body, with cases being brought to them.

I think in the event of an 'ineffective Justice' that we could put measures in place to remove Justices from the seat. Possibly the same type of regulations associated with nomination..

Maybe a call for removal from the Founder / and approval of the Assembly...