The Judicial Foundation Act

Our regional legislature - IDUSA. [Out-Of-Character]
Post Reply
Democratic Republic Of Eiria
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2019 2:38 am
Location: Minnesota

The Judicial Foundation Act

Post by Democratic Republic Of Eiria » Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:16 am

Sorry for taking so long to post this. It's been sitting on the back burner for a while.
The Judicial Foundation Act
A by-law to establish the Judicial Branch of the IDU, and to regulate said branch in accordance with the IDU Charter.

Recognizing that the current IDU laws and By laws, though short, cover a lot of ground and form an excellent foundation for regional law,

Noting that, even though the Charter mentions the creation of a Judicial Committee, it doesn't set many specifics on said committee, and leaves that up to further legislation,

Believing that a Judicial Branch of the IDU is crucial to grant member stations a fair trial and ensure due process of Justice,

Grateful for all of the help I have received to write this document, my first contribution to IDU law, and thank them for their time and dedication.

Hereby Resovles the Following:

§1: The Judiciary Committee
1. The Judiciary Committee shall be comprised of three equal Judges, each tasked with upholding the laws and by-laws of the IDU to the intent of which they were written, most importantly the IDU Charter.

2. As stated the second section of the IDU Charter, The Judges shall be nominated by the Delegate, and Confirmed in the State Assembly via a majority vote. Judges should have a calm demeanor, as well as being active participants in regional affairs and Roleplay and must also have the ability to fairly see both sides of an argument.

3. Each Judge, if appointed, shall have a seat for life, Until they either cease to exist in NS and the IDU forums, Resign, or are Impeached. If a Judge Ceases to Exist, but reappears within two weeks, they shall retain their position.

4. A Judge can be Impeached, in which case, a motion of impeachment must be brought up to the Delegate, and the Delegate may decide if the Motion has merit. If so, a Trial Would be held(Trial Details in Section 2), with the Delegate or a Proxy serving as the Judge, and after the trial, the IDUSA voting as a jury of the Judge's fate.

§2: Trial Law and Judicial Jurisdiction:
1. The Judicial Committee's primary purpose is to uphold the law of the IDU. To do so, the Committee may hold a trial if the IDUSA has voted to accuse a nation of breaking one of said laws. The Speaker, or a Proxy, would serve as the prosecutor, with the Defendant either representing themselves or having a Proxy represent them. After the Trial, the judges will adjourn to discuss and to come up with a verdict, which is reached with a vote between the Judges. The Judiciary Committee, In Conjunction with the IDUSA, is obligated to come up with Penalties for breaking IDU regulations.

2. If a Judge faces a conflict of interest that would interfere with their duty to fairly judge a trial, they have a duty to relinquish themselves from that case.

3. If a tie occurs(Which could only happen if a Judge relinquishes themselves from a case), it falls to the remaining delegates to come up with a compromise.


5. If a Trial of an Elected official occurs, most of the above trial Law is the same, with the Speaker serving as the prosecutor (If the Speaker is the Defendant, the Judges must choose a Proxy), the Defendant representing themselves or having a Proxy, and the Judges presiding. If the Elected official Is a Judge, and the Motion for an Impeachment Trial has been approved by the Delegate, The Accusing party will be the Prosecutor, the Judge or a Proxy as the defendant, and the Delegate as the Judge. However, in this case, after the Trial, the IDUSA will vote on the judges fate.

6. As stated in the Charter, Additional Trial Law and Procedure shall be regulated by the Judicial Committee
Last edited by Democratic Republic Of Eiria on Fri Nov 29, 2019 1:23 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Libertas Omnium Maximus
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Judicial Foundation Act

Post by Libertas Omnium Maximus » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:54 am

First off, this is a very good draft. It absolutely has promise and I think it won't take much editing to get this draft worthy of the voting room floor.

Pre-ambulatory clauses.

These look pretty good (I'm not 100% sure about clause 1 as it doesn't really directly pertain to the bill but I think it's fine). The only thing I might add to this section is a clause justifying the creation of beyond just the charter. You'll want to answer the question: Why is it essential that we have judiciary committee at all?

Section 1, Clause 1: I don't think you need "most importantly the IDU charter" as it is implied that the charter serves as the supreme law. Otherwise, all good. That was basically just a nitpick

Section 1, Clause 2: I might reword "As stated the second section of the IDU Charter[...]". I think you left out either a comma or a few words. I also ask, should it be a majority (>50%) or a super majority (2/3 or more). "Each Judge, [...], they shall retain their position." should be its own clause.

Section 1, Clause 3: You may want to break up and restructure this clause. The base stating that it impeachment of one of the judges is possible, while the subclauses are devoted to explaining the actual procedure. It is also my opinion that the delegate should NOT serve as the judge as the delegate is already the accuser. This would be like, if in a RL court of law, the prosecutor was aloud to preside over his own case. I might advise retaining the two remaining IDUJC judges to preside over the court in tandem. I would also state that, since there is no jury used in regular IDUJC proceedings, we should not have one just for these specific cases.

Section 2, Clause 1: "The Judicial Committee's primary purpose is to uphold the law of the IDU" is actually its own operative clause. I might suggest working this in elsewhere. This whole clause honestly could be broken down into an entire section of its own. I would split this up into multiple clauses at the very least. Additionally, I don't think the entire IDUSA should be accusing anyone. I think accusations should be made by one nation against another nation. In all honestly, many disputes will directly be between two nations anyway and having to have the IDUSA to take sides could prove problematic.

Section 2, Clause 2: Yup. This looks good.

Section 2, Clause 3: You mean judges? We only have one delegate.

Section 2, Clause 4: This ties back into court proceedings so I would put it up with Clause 1.

Section 2, Clause 5: This is two separate clauses. The latter half should be worked combined with 1-C for its own... section... maybe. This one is tricky because the scenarios are distinctly different, yet almost the same in practice. I'll have to think on this one further.

Section 2, Clause 6: Yeah, this is fine.

Restructuring Notes: I think you need to break the sections up a little more. "Court Proceedings" should certainly be its own section. I would also remind you that breaking up your clauses into subclauses is encouraged.

Formatting Notes: Generally, operative clauses in a piece of legislation begin with a verb. "The Judicial Committee's primary purpose is to uphold the law of the IDU" might change to: "Establishes the IDU Judiciary Committee to uphold the laws of the IDU." That isn't a great example but it's all I could think of at 2:00 AM.

This is a great draft with a ton of potential. Nations of the IDUSA, I hope you take the time to read it and give your feedback and input. Eiria, thanks for all of your hard work.

Post Reply