This discussion seems to be a photocopy of numerous others involving Belschaft and Operation Brave Little Toaster. That was not my intention. The truth is, it is this provision that made Operation Brave Little Toaster possible. If you insert a provision into your legal system that gives the power of banishment (the power to alter the voting rolls), that provision is a temptress to anyone with a malicious agenda. We might all trust our current Cabinet today, but what about those elected years from now? What about those who may have similar designs to purge the region of opponents?

For some reason this region has a trust issue with our court system. It is the judiciary's job to ban members. That is why we specially elect peers who are impartial and competent. Instead, this provision has created a system in which only the executive and legislative branches are involved in discussing a ban. That is completely contradictory to the basics of any government.

I have an alternative proposal which I hope brings some hardliners back to the discussion table. What if we amend this article to allow for the Cabinet to vote to temporarily detain a citizen pending trial? The Cabinet can still keep the region safe, but the ultimate decision will go where it should be, in the hands of our court.

I'd still be opposed to it.

Sorry HEM. I know you mean well, but I think it is extremely flawed to equate Cabinet removal with circumventing the judiciary. One has nothing to do with the other.

and since when did this become about banning? I thought this was about citizenship?

HEM, we may be close to having a reasonable judiciary that actually does things and is treated like a branch of the government but unfortunately for the most part (the past 2 years that I was in TSP), the court system has been an issue and constantly in some state of disarray. People don't know what to go to the court for (other then legal questions) or are afraid of it or trying to delete it from existence.

There are many related issues such as the lack of having someone to represent the government in a case so its not an individual cabinet member or citizen filing a case.

Once my legal questions or questions about procedures are answered by the court I intend to file charges against Belschaft and would like to welcome any support in terms of witnesses and such and will be, as usual, very public about the whole thing.

We have a problem. TSP is accused of being an "old boys club" and the handling of OPBLT makes that accusation seem more valid. Now steps have been taken to redress that and further ones will be taken as well.

The power that the executive branch has shouldn't be taken away, it is balanced in the one sense that the Assembly can check it. The last time we had a discussion about TSP and its branches most people made it clear that true power in TSP lies in the Assembly. We just need to figure out a way to make it so that the court exists in a way that it can check powers without overpowering anyone.

Especially with Belschaft's history on the court and his actions and supporters, I am wary of giving the court powers that place it above any of the other branches. It should be Assembly, Cabinet, and then Court. With all three being able to check the potential abuse of power of each other without overstepping their bounds.

(02-21-2015, 07:16 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I'd still be opposed to it.

Sorry HEM. I know you mean well, but I think it is extremely flawed to equate Cabinet removal with circumventing the judiciary. One has nothing to do with the other.

It is the judicial branch that gets to decide if someone is guilty of something, not the executive. It is a misplaced power.

(02-21-2015, 07:19 PM)TAC Wrote: and since when did this become about banning? I thought this was about citizenship?

Stripping citizenship is a ban from the political processes in this region. Either a forum ban, or a removal of citizenship, should be a decision that is made by a Court that is qualified to look at the evidence impartially.

HEM, can you give an example of the judicial branch (outside of Milograd) working in TSP? Multiple examples? Link to cases and their results?

The same people who have an issue with this should be extremely appalled by the actions that Belschaft took during the Christmas incident of which there is no proof at all. In this case, Belschaft threatened and manipulated and tried to blackmail a sitting delegate. That in itself is a security risk and a sign of a larger problem.

(02-21-2015, 07:24 PM)Escade Wrote: HEM, we may be close to having a reasonable judiciary that actually does things and is treated like a branch of the government but unfortunately for the most part (the past 2 years that I was in TSP), the court system has been an issue and constantly in some state of disarray. People don't know what to go to the court for (other then legal questions) or are afraid of it or trying to delete it from existence.

There are many related issues such as the lack of having someone to represent the government in a case so its not an individual cabinet member or citizen filing a case.

Once my legal questions or questions about procedures are answered by the court I intend to file charges against Belschaft and would like to welcome any support in terms of witnesses and such and will be, as usual, very public about the whole thing.

We have a problem. TSP is accused of being an "old boys club" and the handling of OPBLT makes that accusation seem more valid. Now steps have been taken to redress that and further ones will be taken as well.

The power that the executive branch has shouldn't be taken away, it is balanced in the one sense that the Assembly can check it.  The last time we had a discussion about TSP and its branches most people made it clear that true power in TSP lies in the Assembly. We just need to figure out a way to make it so that the court exists in a way that it can check powers without overpowering anyone.

Especially with Belschaft's history on the court and his actions and supporters, I am wary of giving the court powers that place it above any of the other branches. It should be Assembly, Cabinet, and then Court. With all three being able to check the potential abuse of power of each other without overstepping their bounds.

The reason it is "unclear" is because of shit like this provision that allows the executive to take a judicial action.

This wouldn't be giving the court power "above" the other branches, this would be giving the court the power that it rightfully deserves. The legislature writes the laws, the executive enforces the laws, and the judicial branch determines if anyone broke the law. Once you said blurring the lines between those categories too much  (i.e. letting the executive determine if someone is a "security risk" and can lose a right without a fair trial) then you find the branches unbalanced. The branches are currently VERY unbalanced, but it is not the judicial that is overpowered..

(02-21-2015, 07:02 PM)TAC Wrote: Why should Cabinet members be barred from the vote? Their votes carry no more weight than the rest of us. I'm extremely unlikely to change my mind either. Should I not be allowed to vote on it too?

As I said, the original decision was made by cabinet. There is no point being able to appeal this decision when cabinet votes make up over 25% of the votes on the repeal decision, as they are not going to go against their original decision - it will automatically fail if all cabinet members vote again in that case, as even if everyone else votes for the repeal, you will not get the 75% needed, purely on the amount of votes that will be received.

I see this should be a review of the cabinet's decision, yes. Otherwise it is pointless having the appeal - the cabinet has already made their decision known. It is highly unlikely for the repeal to pass on the first place anyway, but in all fairness, the vote is meant to be to decide if the cabinet made the right decision. It only makes sense for the cabinet to leave it to the rest of the assembly to decide in that case.

As I said, the % either needs to be lowered, cabinet shouldn't be able to vote on the repeal or we just remove the ability to repeal, as it will be impossible for it to succeed.

HEM,

I guess I am burned out re: the judicial branch because we had this same discussion on the old forums. I needed or wanted the courts help and couldn't get it. So I need to see it to believe it. I find it ironic that people at that time were all "we don't have a strong history of a judicial system in TSP so this is how things work" but now when its a different player involved are all "hey the courts are supposed to deal with that."

Yes, the balance is unbalanced. I agree about that.