Useful LinksConstitution Regional Laws Introductions Discord Embassy Requests: Please Telegram the Minister of Foreign Affairs Forum Issues: Contact Alamei |
| Welcome to the Versutian Federation forums! You can register an account by clicking below. Once you've registered, you can begin voting in elections, running for office, and participating in the many organizations and discussions that we have here. Join our community! When you register, we prefer that you use your nation name for your account name. You may use a different name if you so desire. Regardless of your choice of name, however, please fill out the "nation name" field with your nation that currently resides in the Versutian Federation. If you're already a member, please log in: |
| Jenlom for Minister of Justice; Law student, contributed to the Constitution, responsible for the commendation in the SC. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 2 2013, 09:49 AM (591 Views) | |
| Jenlom | Apr 2 2013, 09:49 AM Post #1 |
|
Minister of Justice
|
![]() I've put myself up for this position. Since standing for election 2 days ago, I've taken a very active part in shaping the role of the Justice Minister - I worked to write much of the Constitution around this area. I also authored much of the Versutian Bill of Rights. About Me I'm a 2nd year law student at the University of Bristol in the UK. If you've not heard of the University, you can find out a bit (well, too much) about it here. Obviously being a law student I have quite an intricate knowledge of how justice works in real life (and it's something I enjoy), so you'd benefit from my growing experience in the legal field, and I'd benefit from doing something I still (despite the best efforts of Jurisprudence lecturers) enjoy. My Justice Policy A while back, there were a few suggestions that justice in the region should be done by jury, however I don't think a panel of people acting as a 'justice committee' is a good idea for a number of reasons:
While I clearly and wholeheartedly support the idea of the region being a beacon of democracy, even the world's greatest democracies do not have justice served by jury most of the time. For example, in the British legal system the vast majority of cases (97%+) are not tried by jury but by a single judge. This is a system I think would work much better. Clearly a Justice Minister acting as judge should not be immune from public opinion, and may seek outside advice, but that should be done on an ad-hoc basis, and not as a matter of course. It also goes without saying that a Minister of Justice should remain professionally distant from the Cabinet, President and the rest of the Government so that a fair trial can be had. The Minister of Justice should also have reasonable security of tenure, in order that he/she can take unpopular but legally and/or morally correct decisions, without constantly fearing the electorate. I've written about how the justice system would be run under my governance here. If you're not bothered about reading that wall of text, it essentially allows for free and open trial proceedings, the Rule of Law, the right to appeal, and allows the Minister of Justice to deliver a fair, rational judgement. In short, it's a system which is more or less on a par with the judicial system your own country probably operates on (unless you live in North Korea, in which case, it's not). Other Achievements My other achievements in the region? Well, if you look here you'll note the Commendation for the region I am currently spearheading. Finally... I'm not afraid to stand up for the little guy, and I'm not afraid to hand down harsh punishments when the situation requires it. So if you'd like to vote for me I appreciate it, otherwise, thanks for your time. Edited by Jenlom, Apr 4 2013, 08:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| The Black Hat Guy | Apr 2 2013, 02:15 PM Post #2 |
|
Former WA Delegate
|
If your opinion was unpopular, would you be willing to rescind it? Obviously not everyone is going to agree with you on everything, and obviously a mob rule is not the way to run a Justice Department, but if, say, a 3/5 majority of the staff (Justice, Defense, Foreign Affairs, WA Delegate, Founder) opposed your ruling, would you be willing to rescind it? Also, how active are you? Edited by The Black Hat Guy, Apr 2 2013, 02:18 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Azazel Crowley | Apr 2 2013, 02:18 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Minister of Foreign Affairs
|
Are you a believer in principles of that which is not prohibited must not be punished? (If someone does something bad, but there is no rule against it, we should not punish them, even if we immediately write a rule to cover the situation.) Or are you a believer that there is an overlying duty of individuals to behave appropriately, and that the rules are warnings and guides on how to act this way? n the event of a conflict between laws, which has supremacy in your opinion. The older, or the newer? (Sorry for question spam. I've asked everyone.) |
![]() |
|
| Jenlom | Apr 2 2013, 03:56 PM Post #4 |
|
Minister of Justice
|
If their arguments were strong enough and they felt strongly enough about those arguments, I might hear an appeal. I check NS every day, although I don't usually get involved with raiding and things like that as it doesn't really interest me.
I am a Green light theorist (the opposite of Diceyansim). People should be allowed to act in whatever way they want so long as there is not a law prohibiting it, and people should be given the benefit of the doubt. So yes, that which is not prohibited must not be punished. Conflicting laws are interesting. Normally I'd say the older law. However, if there's some reason the law doesn't quite fit the situation or if applying the older law would be unjust, I'd distinguish it and write an exception. If I believed the old law unjust in every situation (because of a change in circumstances, not because my opinion had changed), I'd disregard in that particular situation and then refer it to the legislature (do we have one?) to rethink that law. Obviously my preference would be to keep the law stable and clear, as that's the point of it. Following past decisions is a part of that stability and is how most legal systems work in real life (either by following a document such as a penal code or by looking at past cases in common law countries) Edited by Jenlom, Apr 2 2013, 04:00 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Azazel Crowley | Apr 2 2013, 04:03 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Minister of Foreign Affairs
|
I'm also a green light theorist, but didn't want to post the usual maxims. (Something like) "There are three choices." That which is not prohibited cannot be punished That which is not permitted cannot be performed That which is not prohibited is mandatory. Since they are maxims that come straight out of the green light argument and may bias the answer. From your edit I gather you are a fan of the common law then? In that case, I have a further question. Could you elaborate on the relation between precedent and law, and on which you consider superior. As an example, are you a parliamentary supremacist or not. A further example being the current murmurs in the UK courts "Parliament may not, regardless of how many acts they pass, abolish elections. Legal precedent is binding." which parliament finds alarming since it's a challenge to sovereignty. Edited by Azazel Crowley, Apr 2 2013, 04:07 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jenlom | Apr 2 2013, 04:05 PM Post #6 |
|
Minister of Justice
|
A law student also? Where at? And I wouldn't necessarily agree with the last line. Skydiving isn't prohibited but hell would freeze over before I jumped out of a plane.
|
![]() |
|
| Azazel Crowley | Apr 2 2013, 04:08 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Minister of Foreign Affairs
|
The 3 lines are the 3 systems. Either everything is ok, unless it isn't ok. Or nothing ok, unless it is. Or nothing is ok, except the things you MUST do. Not doing them isn't ok. Urm. Not a law student. It's a hobby. Also prior edit.
Edited by Azazel Crowley, Apr 2 2013, 04:12 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jenlom | Apr 2 2013, 04:20 PM Post #8 |
|
Minister of Justice
|
My default position is that any judgement taken by a judge (or in our case Justice Minister) should be the same as was taken the previous x number of times. In the event that (in the judge's opinion) that would result in something which is absurd or patently unjust, the judge should be allowed to either distinguish that particular case from the previous one (or the rule in question) and state that it's different (either factually or conceptually). That's messy as it causes the rules to branch out, but might be valid in certain situations. Where the rule is always going to be unjust (for example, we have a rule banning the promotion of smoking marijuana as it is illegal IRL which works well for a while, but then marijuana is legalised IRL, it would be unjust for the rule to stay in place). Thus the circumstances have changed. Now if, between case A and case B, I smoke some marijuana and decide that contrary to what I originally thought, marijuana is great and therefore everyone should smoke it, I shouldn't change my ruling simply because my opinions have changed, because that would be justice done on a whim, arbitrarily. In response to your second question: Yes, I am a parliamentary supremacist. In relation to that specific point, I view Parliament as a representative of the people (whether it is or not is a discussion I won't get into) so while I would suggest that Parliament might (although almost certainly wouldn't) pass acts abolishing elections, those acts would be invalid not by virtue of some constitutional principle preventing such a thing happening, but by the fact that Parliament would have cut itself off from the people, and thus would have lost its legitimacy, and the Parliament would likely be duly replaced by a revolution. It's also sovereign in relation to the European Union - the only transfer of sovereignty that has taken place is a voluntary one (and parliament does that with special and select committees all the time without a political party being formed to rally against it), and that sovereignty can be returned by Parliament with a repeal of the European Communities Act. |
![]() |
|
| Azazel Crowley | Apr 2 2013, 04:23 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Minister of Foreign Affairs
|
Thankyou for answering my questions. And yes, I did phrase some deviously on purpose in case you are wondering
Edited by Azazel Crowley, Apr 2 2013, 04:25 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jenlom | Apr 3 2013, 05:21 PM Post #10 |
|
Minister of Justice
|
I have updated the first post with reasons you might want to consider electing me. I'd love the job, and I think I'd be the best candidate of all to do it, I've got by far and away the best, most developed ideas, but if you want to give it to someone else I understand. |
![]() |
|
| Emburia | Apr 4 2013, 12:17 AM Post #11 |
|
How willing would you be to rule against an administrator if you had reason to believe a decision they had made (say, banning someone from the forums) was unjust, unfounded, or reflected poorly on the region? |
![]() |
|
| Knox | Apr 4 2013, 03:29 AM Post #12 |
|
Reichskanzler
|
Looks like I'm up against some tough competition. |
![]() |
|
| Jenlom | Apr 4 2013, 04:15 AM Post #13 |
|
Minister of Justice
|
If the ban was against the rules, unconstitutional or morally wrong, it'd be my job to rule against the admins or government members. The Justice Minister should operate like a check and balance in the system to ensure that the state (admins/other Ministers) are not overreaching their powers. |
![]() |
|
| Valhalla Rising | Apr 4 2013, 04:45 PM Post #14 |
|
Post your First year grades (official transcript included, of course). ![]() Kidding aside, it's good to see a fellow law man run for the position. Couple of questions, though. Don't you think it's a bit premature to run for the position before the powers are constitutionally delineated? I, for one, might have an amendment proposal to introduce. Also, "Conflicting laws are interesting. Normally I'd say the older law."? What about implied repeal? Surely that's the more practical and democratic system? |
![]() |
|
| Jenlom | Apr 4 2013, 04:51 PM Post #15 |
|
Minister of Justice
|
Ah, I was thinking more in terms of the common law. But in your question, of course Parliament is a sovereign lawmaking authority and the most recent expressions of its will should be taken as law, so implied repeal is the course of action the judge should take in that particular instance - although any good Parliament should take steps to issue an immediate 'explicit' repeal, for want of a better word, following the handing down of the judgement. Where do/did you study, by the way? Oh and the first question, now seems as good a time as any. If I'm elected, I'd have the advantage of being the first (of many) MoJ's so I could make amendments myself as and when situations arise and it becomes clear they need to be made. I've done quite a bit of thinking and tried to go through all the circumstances I can envisage, but it's hard to tell at the moment what powers and what limitations the MoJ needs to have unless someone is doing the job. Edited by Jenlom, Apr 4 2013, 04:55 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Valhalla Rising | Apr 4 2013, 05:01 PM Post #16 |
|
Final year at King's College London. I briefly though about running myself, but the position might require a time commitment I can't make. I will definitely be going into private practice, though. "Valhalla Rising LLP, all your domestic and international law needs under one roof." ![]() Good to know implied repeal will apply to legislation. I think it needs to apply to case law as well, just as the House of Lords (still can't get used to calling it the Supreme Court) theoretically can overrule itself and lay down new legal tests. There's always the judicial wordplay of 'distinguishing' old decisions, but come on, we know what's really going on. ![]() Edited by Valhalla Rising, Apr 4 2013, 05:02 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Valhalla Rising | Apr 4 2013, 05:07 PM Post #17 |
|
An amendment proposal I think should take out the 2 week inactivity in 'politics' clause, since the court has no business being in 'politics' anyway. It's not appropriate as a removal mechanism, still unsure with what I would replace it, maybe something like 'gross professional misconduct' ascertained with a large majority in both the executive and Parliament would be better. |
![]() |
|
| Jenlom | Apr 4 2013, 05:29 PM Post #18 |
|
Minister of Justice
|
Agreed. Although hopefully the Parliament here will have a hive mind clever enough not to pass conflicting legislation, not being a bunch of mostly drunk MPs. |
![]() |
|
| Valhalla Rising | Apr 4 2013, 05:44 PM Post #19 |
|
Would you consider yourself a positivist or a natural lawyer? Also, how would you answer to someone claiming not to be bound by the constitution of the region, since they have not joined the forum and are charged with a breach of it by virtue of something they posted on the Regional Message Board? |
![]() |
|
| Jenlom | Apr 4 2013, 05:51 PM Post #20 |
|
Minister of Justice
|
I err towards natural law, but that's mostly because I spent last October reading Hart with my face in my hands and vowing to never be like him. I think the way we crowd-drafted the Constitution and ended up with a statement of our collective beliefs is probably one of the best arguments in favour of natural law I can think of. Well, "member Nations" (which is everyone in the region except citizens) are bound by the constitution by their very act of joining. At any rate, their contributions to the RMB are bound by NS's rules as a minimum, but so long as they are a member of the region, they are bound (and protected) by the Constitution whether they like it or not. |
![]() |
|
| Nuew | Apr 4 2013, 06:07 PM Post #21 |
|
Minister of Technology (Self-Declared)
|
You just solidified my position of voting for you. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Campaign Archives · Next Topic » |









3:26 AM Jul 11