Constitutional Amendment to Article 5 - The Fiqh Act of 2014

Romanoffia

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
The Fiqh Act of 2014.

Whereby it seems absolutely impossible for the Court of The North Pacific to adjudicate cases or for Plaintiffs to follow through with their complaints, An Appeal To God is made:

Article 5. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
2. The Court will consist of at least three Justices, who will select a Chief Justice among themselves.
3. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
4. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
5. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a plurality vote every four months.
Click to expand...

Shall be amended to read:

Article 5. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
2. The Court will consist of at least three Justices, who will select a Chief Justice among themselves.
3. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
4. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
5. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a plurality vote every four months.
6. The Fiqh shall consist of God or any of his personal appointees or representatives.
7. Any complaints rejected for any reason by the Attorney Generals Office or the Court of The North Pacific may be referred to the Fiqh for adjudication upon application by the Attorney Generals Office, The Court of The North Pacific, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, or any other person who has an interest in such a complaint.
8. Any complaints deemed inter-personal and not state versus individual in which any party feels wronged will be referred to the Fiqh.
9. All resulting punishments for a guilty verdict from God shall be delivered by an appropriate smiting to be determined by God and by the Hand of God in a manner and form seen fit to deliver by God.
10. All appeals may be made to God and God only.
Click to expand...
 
Symbolic proposals are officially boring. I think the court's been doing pretty darn well, recently. There is currently nothing on the docket, because they've managed to get us completely caught up on review requests and there have been no criminal trials recently.
 
Agreed. I too am getting very bored by the posturing.

The fiqh operates properly and best outside of the constitutional framework. Let's leave it that way.
 
This proposed text would conflict with an amendment made some months ago to the Legal Code:

43. If the Attorney General, and their deputies, decline to manage the prosecution of a requested criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.
44. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 30 days of the Attorney General and their deputies declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
Click to expand...

I do not believe we should bar individuals from seeking criminal redress even in the absence of AG support. That would be a step backwards.
 
SillyString:
This proposed text would conflict with an amendment made some months ago to the Legal Code:

43. If the Attorney General, and their deputies, decline to manage the prosecution of a requested criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.
44. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 30 days of the Attorney General and their deputies declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
Click to expand...

I do not believe we should bar individuals from seeking criminal redress even in the absence of AG support. That would be a step backwards.
Click to expand...
It would not conflict with that part of the legal code. In fact, it would nullify it.

To wit, with modification of this un-symbolic proposal, I would like to use as a support for this amendment something Flemingovia himself point out here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8167181&t=7241067.

Perhaps this proposal can be changed to more of a Legal Code change just so the idea Flemingovia is floating in the post I quote can be tried out experimentally and with legal weight to it.

I mean, the Fiqh is essentially a 'religious court', and since we have an official state religion, then why not give official status to the Fiqh for settling conflicts between individuals that can never be remedied under the current 'criminal code' only system that can only punish but never resolve conflicts in anything resembling a constructive fashion?

I think Flemingovia's ideas he presents in the quoted post in the link is worthy of investigating and giving a try, even if experimentally.
 
Romanoffia:
It would not conflict with that part of the legal code. In fact, it would nullify it.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is precisely the conflict I am referring to. The two would only not conflict if the proposed bill sought to either accommodate or repeal the section in question.
 
SillyString:
Romanoffia:
It would not conflict with that part of the legal code. In fact, it would nullify it.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is precisely the conflict I am referring to. The two would only not conflict if the proposed bill sought to either accommodate or repeal the section in question.
Click to expand...

That's what usually happens when a constitutional amendment is passed - a modification of the legal code in terms of upholding or nullifying certain aspects of an existing legal code. It's normal in constitutional systems. :P

flemingovia:
Elegarth:
I think an appeal to God is an stupid concept...
Click to expand...
Your objection is noted.

Yours sincerely,

God
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever told you that you have an extremely dry sense of humour? :lol:
 
Romanoffia:
That's what usually happens when a constitutional amendment is passed - a modification of the legal code in terms of upholding or nullifying certain aspects of an existing legal code. It's normal in constitutional systems. :P
Click to expand...
And if the bill sought to modify the Legal Code, my objection to the creation of a conflict would be withdrawn.

As it does not do that, however....
 
That is true. This could be accomplished in an alternative fashion through a change in Court Rules, but any decisions by the Fiqh would not be binding in a technical sense of the word because only the Court can adjudicate legal issues in a constitutional sense of the word. In turn, the court would have to change its rules to create a "Fiqh" in order to act as a binding mediator between individuals, and thus avoid legal code or constitutional changes.
 
Frankly I think it is unethical for the government to support a particular religion. I cannot conscientiously support this bill, as I am not a flemingovian.
 
plembobria:
Frankly I think it is unethical for the government to support a particular religion. I cannot conscientiously support this bill, as I am not a flemingovian.
Click to expand...
You know you can be pilloried and nailed to a tree for expressing such ideas. :P
 
SillyString:
plembobria:
Frankly I think it is unethical for the government to support a particular religion.
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate on this point? What is unethical about it in a NationStates context?
Click to expand...
Many nations don't support the idea of flemingovia being a deity. Just because the court can't decide a case doesn't mean some self-proclaimed "God" should. Even in a NS context.
 
plembobria:
SillyString:
plembobria:
Frankly I think it is unethical for the government to support a particular religion.
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate on this point? What is unethical about it in a NationStates context?
Click to expand...
Many nations don't support the idea of flemingovia being a deity. Just because the court can't decide a case doesn't mean some self-proclaimed "God" should. Even in a NS context.
Click to expand...
tnp is a strange place, and not at all like real life.

We have one court official who seems to think that he is living in some mythical place called South Carolina, not TNP, and another who appeals to the Urban dictionary for legal precedent. In that context, Flemingovianism is not that odd.

And, by the way, I am not self-proclaimed. I have been proclaimed by quite a lot of other people.

The issue is not that the court cannot decide a case, it is that they have decided that they will not even hear a civil case. as you discovered to your cost. Having an alternative makes sense. However, it works best outside of the existing legal framework, which is why this legislation is a bad idea.
 
Let the record state it is not the Attorneys General (as Flem has taken to call us rather then Attorney General or Office of the Attorney General) nor the constitutional court of TNP who "refuses" to hear civil cases - in fact it was this esteemed legislative body back on or around April 1st of this year -- who voted to disband Civil procedings in the courts. (LINK TO VOTE: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7175034/1/)
 
I think there may be some confusion because your assistant has taken to replying on behalf of the office of Attorney General, and goes so far as to refer to themselves as "we", as though the position were shared. This instead of the superior/subordinate relationship it actually is, or should be. :)
 
flemingovia:
The issue is not that the court cannot decide a case, it is that they have decided that they will not even hear a civil case. as you discovered to your cost. Having an alternative makes sense. However, it works best outside of the existing legal framework, which is why this legislation is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Let the record state, me'luds, that I never suggested that the Attorneys General had decided not to pursue civil cases.

It's not all about you, PaulWall, you know.
 
You're so vain
You probably think this thread is about you
You're so vain,
I'll bet you think this thread is about you
Don't you?
Don't you?

I just wanted to clarify based on the quoted text here made to phem

The issue is not that the court cannot decide a case, it is that they have decided that they will not even hear a civil case. as you discovered to your cost.
Click to expand...
 
Democratic Donkeys:
I think there may be some confusion because your assistant has taken to replying on behalf of the office of Attorney General, and goes so far as to refer to themselves as "we", as though the position were shared. This instead of the superior/subordinate relationship it actually is, or should be. :)
Click to expand...
I fail to see why you find objection to my having pointed out the fact that there is not such thing as a Civil case nor Civil Law in TNP. If we had sent you the case, you would simply have rejected. We just saved you the trouble of wasting the Court's time with a Civil case when no such cases can even exist in TNP (thanks to those who voted to abolish Civil Law).

I stated a fact and if the use of 'we' has offended you in any way, please accept my apologies. I will send you flowers and a box of nice chocy's if you want. :P
 
reading the thread, this bill seems to have no support except the proposer. Can I suggest it is either tabled (in the Colonial sense of the word) or brought to a vote so that it is voted down?
 
Or just to be aggravating and get on peoples nerves keep it in informal discussion and occassionally add a comment about the bill to keep it from being archived after 30 days of inactivity per the procedures set up by the speakers office.

Either way really ;)
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Or just to be aggravating and get on peoples nerves keep it in informal discussion and occassionally add a comment about the bill to keep it from being archived after 30 days of inactivity per the procedures set up by the speakers office.

Either way really ;)
Click to expand...
It is hard to believe that anyone would be that much of a tit, isn't it? <_< ;)
 
flemingovia:
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Or just to be aggravating and get on peoples nerves keep it in informal discussion and occassionally add a comment about the bill to keep it from being archived after 30 days of inactivity per the procedures set up by the speakers office.

Either way really ;)
Click to expand...
It is hard to believe that anyone would be that much of a tit, isn't it? <_< ;)
Click to expand...

And what, exactly, do you have against tits? Personally, I am quite fond of them if the woman attached does them justice. Tits on a boar hog, however, are quite useless.

PaulWallLibertarian42:
Sometime tits are appreciated. In the states the whole month of October is dedicated to them. :/
Click to expand...

Tit appreciation month would be November, when elections are held. :lol:

Maybe we should add something about Zombies to this bill to get more support?

And the informal debate continues.
 
This bill is now in formal debate, and will be in formal debate for five days, after which a vote will be scheduled.
 
Lord Nwahs:
This bill is now in formal debate, and will be in formal debate for five days, after which a vote will be scheduled.
Click to expand...
That is, until the Oligarchy silences the debate.

:P
 
As previous presidence allows they can only silence a scheduling of a vote by getting enough objections. (Which I'll be surprised if they don't) and cannot outright silence the debate.
 
I did used to be a deputy speaker. I knowz the rules. And one job besides NPA'ing that I wasnt too terrible at ;) atleast I dont think I was terrible. Zyvet and that Lord Nwahs guy were good colleagues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top