Parliament, Judiciary, and Executive Branch

New Tarajan wrote:The idea is good.

But wouldn't it be better to merge the WA Delegate with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs?

That's what I've been suggesting.

What does the delegate actually do? As in, what is the purpose of having a delegate?

It is good for if the founder CTEs, or as a check on the Founder.
Plus founders can't do it all.

I have an idea that would give the people power if a Eurussia-like situation happened again. People could elect a small group of judges that would take on cases bought on by members of the region. They would discuss and make a decision. That decision must be implemented. That way, if someone is banned unfairly or someone abuses power, they can face punishments.

Talanzaar wrote:I have an idea that would give the people power if a Eurussia-like situation happened again. People could elect a small group of judges that would take on cases bought on by members of the region. They would discuss and make a decision. That decision must be implemented. That way, if someone is banned unfairly or someone abuses power, they can face punishments.

That was what we had with the COJ in the WA, but Eurussia always managed to bring down verdicts he didn't like, (or stall them indefinitely by refusing to change status.).

Post ideas here for the Judicial branch of the Esamir government.

I think we should have a system like the actual Supreme Courts of the world, in which there are 3-5 justices and a Chief Justice.

How about a court of 12 people to judge it, and the founder/delegate can't have any say in the verdict. Only the 12 people.

Fascist Arkannia wrote:How about a court of 12 people to judge it, and the founder/delegate can't have any say in the verdict. Only the 12 people.

Twelve is too large. The largest I would go is nine.

How about 7? That way there is always a majority vote.

Fascist Arkannia wrote:How about 7? That way there is always a majority vote.

Seven would work. Six associate justices and a Chief Justice.

Sounds awesome. If there is someone who nullifies his decision, like he pro-longs it or somehow makes the votes invalid, we can flip a coin for their choice.

7 is probably the best number in this regard.

IDEA: If there is someone who nullifies his decision, like he pro-longs it or somehow makes the votes invalid, we can flip a coin for their choice.

(I reposted it here since it's still an idea)

Unovia Esamir wrote:7 is probably the best number in this regard.

Indeed. We'd need to formulate the exact specifics, as well as the constitutional passage, but seven will definitely work.

Perfect!

These justices could also be directly elected by the people and serve out 2 month terms

Sounds reasonable. How many times can those who were on the jury run for? Or could they be elected infinite amount of times?

Fascist Arkannia wrote:Sounds reasonable. How many times can those who were on the jury run for? Or could they be elected infinite amount of times?

I don't think there should be term limits

They would just have to get elected again after 2 months

A term limit in the sense they'd have to wait four months to be able to be elected again.

Fascist Arkannia wrote:A term limit in the sense they'd have to wait four months to be able to be elected again.

No, is not really needed. If the people want nations in the courts, they will vote for them. We need to make sure we have the right people running in the court.

What about separate courts for criminal and constitutional purposes?

A "Constitutional Court" would review laws approved by the Parliament and the executive branch. This court would have 3-5 members that would have justices with (possibly) indefinite terms.

The "Criminal Court" would be concerned with those who break the rules and issuing a punishment for the executive branch to carry out. The Criminal Court would be headed be two judges, but only one can choose to hear a case (having two in charge is primarily there to allow one justice to take personal leave) and a five-member jury selected in some manner from the active members. To ensure the anonymity for the jury members, accounts labeled "Jury #_" would be assigned to the members who will then decide amongst themselves the verdict and punishment. If the defendant wishes to ask for a public listing of the jury votes, the justice leading the court would ask the jury accounts to list their true verdict. Since the justices don't do much decision making themselves, the justices would go for election (or reelection) during the general elections.

Kaevi wrote:What about separate courts for criminal and constitutional purposes?

A "Constitutional Court" would review laws approved by the Parliament and the executive branch. This court would have 3-5 members that would have justices with (possibly) indefinite terms.

The "Criminal Court" would be concerned with those who break the rules and issuing a punishment for the executive branch to carry out. The Criminal Court would be headed be two judges, but only one can choose to hear a case (having two in charge is primarily there to allow one justice to take personal leave) and a five-member jury selected in some manner from the active members. To ensure the anonymity for the jury members, accounts labeled "Jury #_" would be assigned to the members who will then decide amongst themselves the verdict and punishment. If the defendant wishes to ask for a public listing of the jury votes, the justice leading the court would ask the jury accounts to list their true verdict. Since the justices don't do much decision making themselves, the justices would go for election (or reelection) during the general elections.

I think we should keep the Courts combined. It'll be too complicated with two courts. I like the a Jury idea for trials however.

The wa delegate which will be elected, can head the ministry for foreign affairs. The ministers can help the delegate

I think we should have a general assembly which elects a security council which elects an executive branch. The General assembly makes legislation, and the security council is responsible for maintaining international peace and security. The council electsnations for several executive positions which also includes forum moderators.
The general assembly will elect it's President who will act as speaker. The council will also elect it's own President.