[TWI Only] Supreme Court of The Western Isles

[Cottoria]

sorry for CRA I am also NAY

[Cottoria]

I fail to see how adding more executive positions will add more members to the region. Will you please explain?

Now you have positions for Secretary, and minister. And yes, of course you can't direclty challenge the minister. But double members in the Excecutive Branch, so more places and nations are attracted by more places so more nations will come to our region.

If you added different positions (e.g. secretary of Finance) this amendment would be ok, I don't see adding additional members to the current positions as useful if one of the executive member want to hire someone that is fine but I don't see this being helpful in any way.

[The Pacific Peace Union]

Now you have positions for Secretary, and minister. And yes, of course you can't direclty challenge the minister. But double members in the Excecutive Branch, so more places and nations are attracted by more places so more nations will come to our region.

Personally I don't think this would work that way. I don't really see a point in adding secretaries, and I also do not like the fact only secretaries can challenge the minister. I suggest you change that part of the amendment, and also use more specific wording in other parts.

[Bhumidol]

Seeing as the court has been lagging behind in it's responsibilities for quite a while, I propose the following precedent on court procedure, in order for the WI Supreme Court to remain constitutional, and operable.

As a court, we should instantiate the motion, "vote to reproach upon completion for the given amendment", whenever a piece of legislation shows a lack of fine detail that causes it to violate the constitution. Such a motion will allow us, by vote of simple majority, to abondon the given legislation as to allow to court to move onto other pressing matters that need to be heard. The author of the, 'incomplete', legislation may resubmit an edited amendment adressing the justices concerns, which will be placed at the end of the docket as per normal procedure. This motion will not be applied in circumstances where the amendment being argued is the only amendment and/or case in the court docket.

Under the, "Notes on the Judicial Branch", it is intended for our court to act in unity for the betterment of our region. However, with the combination of occasional inactivity from justices and authors, and with occasional poorly worded legislation, the Supreme Court has shown time and time again to become backlogged over oftentimes absurdly miniscule matters. This also harkens back to Cristo's Chemical Weapon's Amendment which, through poor wording, stalled the entire court for more than a week.

Thus, in order for our court to act within the confines of the constitution, and act as a cohesive body, rather than through a couple of dominant individuals, this precedent motion must be set in place.

Therefore, by the precedent set above, and with a majority approval from other justices, I motion to vote to reproach upon completion for the given amendment by Great-Imperialonia. A simple majority is required to remove this amendment from the docket, and to move onto the next piece of legislation. The Author may resubmit the amendment with desired grammatical and constitutional changes, which will then be added to the end of the court's docket.

[The Pacific Peace Union]

I have no complications with Bhumidols motion, and I second the motion to vote to reproach upon completion

[Linaviar]

While the system appears to be well thought out I am more than a bit uneasy with the implications that skipping legislation entails; as such, I abstain.

[Wildelyn]

I am for this motion, It would make the matters of the Supreme Court faster and overrun legislation which is not full thought of or lack of fine detail.

[The Pacific Peace Union]

I vote Yea to reproach upon completion

[Bhumidol]

I vote yea to reproach upon completion.

[Wildelyn]

Then reproaching upon completion is now required until further notice, the Idea of Bhumidol has been approved...

Has the "Minister's" amendment already been discussed?

[The Pacific Peace Union]

Yes it has been check the earlier posts. It will not pass unless the author changes the election process which he has not done.

[Great-Imperialonia]

Yes it has been check the earlier posts. It will not pass unless the author changes the election process which he has not done.

Well, I don't really see how you want it. Can you make it clear one more time?

[Cottoria]

Seeing as the court has been lagging behind in it's responsibilities for quite a while, I propose the following precedent on court procedure, in order for the WI Supreme Court to remain constitutional, and operable.

As a court, we should instantiate the motion, "vote to reproach upon completion for the given amendment", whenever a piece of legislation shows a lack of fine detail that causes it to violate the constitution. Such a motion will allow us, by vote of simple majority, to abondon the given legislation as to allow to court to move onto other pressing matters that need to be heard. The author of the, 'incomplete', legislation may resubmit an edited amendment adressing the justices concerns, which will be placed at the end of the docket as per normal procedure. This motion will not be applied in circumstances where the amendment being argued is the only amendment and/or case in the court docket.

Under the, "Notes on the Judicial Branch", it is intended for our court to act in unity for the betterment of our region. However, with the combination of occasional inactivity from justices and authors, and with occasional poorly worded legislation, the Supreme Court has shown time and time again to become backlogged over oftentimes absurdly miniscule matters. This also harkens back to Cristo's Chemical Weapon's Amendment which, through poor wording, stalled the entire court for more than a week.

Thus, in order for our court to act within the confines of the constitution, and act as a cohesive body, rather than through a couple of dominant individuals, this precedent motion must be set in place.

Therefore, by the precedent set above, and with a majority approval from other justices, I motion to vote to reproach upon completion for the given amendment by Great-Imperialonia. A simple majority is required to remove this amendment from the docket, and to move onto the next piece of legislation. The Author may resubmit the amendment with desired grammatical and constitutional changes, which will then be added to the end of the court's docket.

I am for the motion

[The Pacific Peace Union]

Yes it has been check the earlier posts. It will not pass unless the author changes the election process which he has not done.

Well, I don't really see how you want it. Can you make it clear one more time?

Ive explained in earlier posts, please re read them as it is fairly simple to understand.

[Bhumidol]

We await upon Landinium for a yea or nay on the given motion now. After a reasonable amount of time, the court, having already achieved a de jure majority, will proceed onto the next matter on the docket.

To the author, Great Imperiolonia, we hope to see your amendment, cleaner and polished, in our docket in the near future. We believe that it has several good merits that, as the author points out, may increase participation based off of the availability of new positions, and potentially increase government activity.

As a court, we also sincerely apologize for what may appear to be in one perspective, ignoring a valid piece of legislation needing attention and approval from the court. However, seeing that our inaction proves to be unconstitutional within the bounds of the intention of the constitution, and further seeing that ultimate constitutionality may be achieved with an eventual resubmission and approval of amendments such as these now and in the future, the Supreme Court remains steadfast in this new procedure, awaiting for official confirmation through Landinium's vote in the near future.

[Great-Imperialonia]

Honourable justices,

I have changed the amendemt, please tell me if anything is still wrong.

Honoured

[The Pacific Peace Union]

The wording on controlling the minister is still incredibly vague, and I honestly see no point in adding these extra governmental positions.

[Polar Svalbard]

Sorry if im butting in, but why not make the secretaries appointed by the minister?

[The Pacific Peace Union]

Honourable justices,

I have changed the amendemt, please tell me if anything is still wrong.

Honoured

This could of been considered more greatly if you would of brought it up in the constitutional convention, anyhow with the new constitution it appears you will have to bring this amendment to the senate which I recommend doing after you revise it.

[Cottoria]

Sorry if im butting in, but why not make the secretaries appointed by the minister?

I like the idea

[Tuernia]

As Speaker Pro Tempore, I wish to present this amendment to the court for their judgment of it's constitutionality. It passed the Senate by a vote of 2-0, with one abstention.

1st Constitutional Amendment (2015)

---

An Act to amend the constitution to change the size of the Supreme Court, as well as the filling of vacancies in the same.

---

Supreme Court Size

(1) Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution is amended thusly:

"The judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court of three justices, all with equal power and status. Justices are considered officers and may not concurrently serve in the executive or legislative branches."

(2) Article III, Section 5 is amended thusly:

"In the event a justice is absent for an unreasonable time or a justice has a conflict of interest, the Vice President shall substitute for the justice until they can return to active duty, unless the Vice President is absent or has a conflict of interest, in which case the President shall appoint a non-officer to serve as a temporary justice."

(3) Article III, Section 6, is repealed.

(4) The numbering of articles and sections shall be fixed to reflect the above changes, as needed.

(5) If, at the time of the passage of this amendment, there are more than three justices, justices shall be removed from the court in order of ascending seniority, until there are three justices.

Author: Tuernia

[Linaviar]

Proposed: First Constitutional Amendment Act (2015)

---

Purpose: An Act to amend the constitution to change the size of the Supreme Court, as well as the filling of vacancies in the same.

Legislation Text

---

First Constitutional Amendment Act (2015)

---

An Act to amend the constitution to change the size of the Supreme Court, as well as the filling of vacancies in the same.[hr]

Supreme Court Size

(1) Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution is amended thusly:

"The judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court of three justices, all with equal power and status. Justices are considered officers and may not concurrently serve in the executive or legislative branches."

(2) Article III, Section 5 is amended thusly:

"In the event a justice is absent for an unreasonable time or a justice has a conflict of interest, the Vice President shall substitute for the justice until they can return to active duty, unless the Vice President is absent or has a conflict of interest, in which case the President shall appoint a non-officer to serve as a temporary justice."

(3) Article III, Section 6, is repealed.

(4) The numbering of articles and sections shall be fixed to reflect the above changes, as needed.

(5) If, at the time of the passage of this amendment, there are more than three justices, justices shall be removed from the court in order of ascending seniority, until there are three justices.

The proposed legislation is hereby open for debate
The proposed legislation has been APPROVED by a vote of 4-0-1

[The Pacific Peace Union]

May I first begin by asking the author the reasoning behind shrinking the court size?

[Tuernia]

May I first begin by asking the author the reasoning behind shinking the court size?

The Senate believes that the current size of the court is too large. We are constantly running with inactive or absent justices. We think that a smaller court would be more efficient.

[Linaviar]

A simple amendment that reduces the size of the court and changes a few sections of the constitution to fit the new 3-justice system. I don't see anything explicitly unconstitutional about this, so debate should be quick.