Lorerunner's Forums

The Lorerunner's Forums

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Turn 1-1070
Today at 7:24 pm by The_Wanderer_In_Rags

» Black Scale
Today at 6:48 pm by SilverDragonRed

» HAPPY BIRTHDAY...
Today at 4:32 pm by WKC690

» PATREON CHANGES
Today at 4:13 pm by WKC690

» Black Water
Today at 2:17 pm by SilverDragonRed

» Turn 12-1069
Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:41 pm by Onyx Aurelius

» Turn 11-1069
Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:51 am by Onyx Aurelius

» MCU Discussion Links - Historical
Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:12 pm by DollarD

» Turn 10-1069
Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:44 pm by Crensler

You are not connected. Please login or register

Committee for Democratic Constitution (Bradley2000, WhiskeyWhiskers, bingcrosby7, KarbinCry, grifinknight)

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 20 ... 37  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 3 of 37]

KarbinCry wrote:I just found out a decent compromise: why not add imminent domain to the bill of rights, provided such confiscation be approved in a trial by jury?

I'll second this motion.

View user profile
I am heavily in favour of a jury system. The ability for the common man to set a moral and legal precedent through nullification alone is a great bulwark against tyranny.

e: I can hardly go against that amendment after this now can I?



Last edited by WhiskeyWhiskers on Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:I just found out a decent compromise: why not add imminent domain to the bill of rights, provided such confiscation be approved in a trial by jury?



Hmmm that seems appropriate

View user profile
bingcrosby7 wrote:
KarbinCry wrote:I also have a proposition brought to me by another memeber of the Resistance:

No quartering of troops in people's houses without consent

He also brought up the issue of judiciary, whether we will have a jury-based system.

I myself am against trial by jury, except very limited cases.

1) No quartering of troops should fall under the category of property ownership (the owner has autonomy and can dictate who can and cannot enter his residence).

2) In what instances do you think a juried trial would be appropriate?

1) Yes, but the same, IMO, goes for freedom of speech and press. We should really put these into an external, elaborative companion document to the constitution, so that everything is undestandable to the people, yet detailed elaboration is provided for complex issues.

WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I am heavily in favour of a jury system. The ability for the common man to set a moral and legal precedent through nullification alone is a great bulwark against tyranny.

I am against it myself. People are quick to make opinions, and an untrained eye can misrepresent facts and evidence. Jury based system is a system based mostly on emotion, not rationality. This is why I only agree on it in cases of imminent domain.



Last edited by KarbinCry on Sun Jan 08, 2017 7:14 am; edited 2 times in total

View user profile
WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I am heavily in favour of a jury system. The ability for the common man to set a moral and legal precedent through nullification alone is a great bulwark against tyranny.

I am against it myself. People are quick to make opinions, and an untrained eye can misrepresent facts and evidence. Jury based system is a system based mostly on emotion, not rationality. This is why I only agree on it in cases of imminent domain.¨

EDIT: OOC: I am sorry for doubleposting, but I write longer and oftentimes someone else already posts a new post I want to answer to, and answering via edits doesnt seem to be very effective.



Last edited by KarbinCry on Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
OOC for a sec: It's actually eminent domain, no biggy.

View user profile
Whiskey,

I can understand your position—the judiciary is given a large degree of power if it, in and of itself, determines the outcome of all court cases; that said, I also understand Karbin’s position. Matters that result in a trial should be judged by their constitutionality, not by the will of the people who may or may not be educated in such matters. If we let the people decide court cases, the most skilled rhetorician will sway the case, regardless of the constitutionality.

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:
bingcrosby7 wrote:
KarbinCry wrote:I also have a proposition brought to me by another memeber of the Resistance:

No quartering of troops in people's houses without consent

He also brought up the issue of judiciary, whether we will have a jury-based system.

I myself am against trial by jury, except very limited cases.

1) No quartering of troops should fall under the category of property ownership (the owner has autonomy and can dictate who can and cannot enter his residence).

2) In what instances do you think a juried trial would be appropriate?

1) Yes, but the same, IMO, goes for freedom of speech and press. We should really put these into an external, elaborative companion document to the constitution, so that everything is undestandable to the people, yet detailed elaboration is provided for complex issues.

Karbin,

I agree that we should eventually make a document that explicitly states how to interpret the constitution so that high court judges will make sound, more informed judgements about court proceedings on any variety of issues.

View user profile
I too agree emotion often clouds sound judgement. Just look at what happened when my father challenged one of the garrison after seeing an execution. Guess who was next on the chopping block.

View user profile
Emotion is a hugely important part of morality. The gut feeling of a farm hand called up for jury duty that a law is unjust, whether legally correct or not, should be listened to if we wish our laws to be in tune with the will of the people.

View user profile
WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:OOC for a sec: It's actually eminent domain, no biggy.

OOC: Yeah, I lern languages audibly, so I often make spelling errors. Especially since my language has very strong ties between pronounciation and vowels (all vowels sound the same in every word, barring one or two exceptions), whereas, comparatively, English spelling is bonkers.

View user profile
bingcrosby7 wrote:Whiskey,

I can understand your position—the judiciary is given a large degree of power if it, in and of itself, determines the outcome of all court cases; that said, I also understand Karbin’s position.  Matters that result in a trial should be judged by their constitutionality, not by the will of the people who may or may not be educated in such matters. If we let the people decide court cases, the most skilled rhetorician will sway the case, regardless of the constitutionality.

The laws are written by those with the greatest rhetorical skill.

View user profile
WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:Emotion is a hugely important part of morality. The gut feeling of a farm hand called up for jury duty that a law is unjust, whether legally correct or not, should be listened to if we wish our laws to be in tune with the will of the people.

Emotion can often cloud morality, and it can negatively influence decision-making, regardless if the decision is morally based or otherwise. Emotion does not care about careful, deliberate cost benefit analysis in a utilitarian sense, and emotionally charged decisions are often made too hastily. Our decisions, especially when the decision are grave, should be made slowly, carefully, and logically.

View user profile
Firstly, I wrote all the stuff at least 3 of us agree on to the dedicated thread.

Secondle, to Mr. Whispers - emotional justice is vindictive justice, revenge. Remember the case of Alfred Dreyfus, a poor man convicted by emotion, but freed by law. We cannot let emotion affect the pursuit of justice.

View user profile
I would like to propose roles for a second if you do not mind.

1. I shall be responsible for tabling the issues.
2. WhiskeyWhiskers shall be responsible for adding our agreed proposals to the folders marked " Current State Of The Constitution "
3. bingcosby7 shall consult with the other delegates to better represent the people and propose solutions we would not think of.
4. KarbonCry shall update the current proposal as we go along so we do not get confused.


All agreed?.



Last edited by bradley2000 on Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:
bingcrosby7 wrote:Whiskey,

I can understand your position—the judiciary is given a large degree of power if it, in and of itself, determines the outcome of all court cases; that said, I also understand Karbin’s position.  Matters that result in a trial should be judged by their constitutionality, not by the will of the people who may or may not be educated in such matters. If we let the people decide court cases, the most skilled rhetorician will sway the case, regardless of the constitutionality.

The laws are written by those with the greatest rhetorical skill.

This is true to an extent, though our constitutional committee was assembled by happenstance rather than merit based delegation—for all we know, there could be a master rhetorician who simply did not throw in his oar. Even if this is true, though, a logician rather than a rhetorician should enact and enforce the constitution on a judicial level, as doing so rationally and reasonably is the most just code of conduct.

View user profile
bradley2000 wrote:I would like to propose roles for a second if you do not mind.

1. I shall be responsible for tabling the issues.
2. WhiskeyWhiskers shall be responsible for adding our agreed proposals to the folders marked " Current State Of The Constitution "
3. bingcosby7 shall consult with the other delegates to better represent the people.
4. KarbonCry shall update the current proposal as we go along so we do not get confused.


All agreed?.

I accept my role and have no reservations about anyone else's.

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:Firstly, I wrote all the stuff at least 3 of us agree on to the dedicated thread.

Secondle, to Mr. Whispers - emotional justice is vindictive justice, revenge. Remember the case of Alfred Dreyfus, a poor man convicted by emotion, but freed by law. We cannot let emotion affect the pursuit of justice.

As we saw in this last war, the cold bland tyranny of the perfunctory is just as deadly and far more insidious.

View user profile
WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:
KarbinCry wrote:Firstly, I wrote all the stuff at least 3 of us agree on to the dedicated thread.

Secondle, to Mr. Whispers - emotional justice is vindictive justice, revenge. Remember the case of Alfred Dreyfus, a poor man convicted by emotion, but freed by law. We cannot let emotion affect the pursuit of justice.

As we saw in this last war, the cold bland tyranny of the perfunctory is just as deadly and far more insidious.

And the protection against that is the Constitution. Especially for what has happened - masses of Germans and Japanese driven to frenzy, to fierce hate! That is also emotion, and one far too easy to engender.
Or look towards Rome, where trials were decided by vote - and what farce they were!

View user profile
Current Issues
Judiciary - trial by jury, to what extent?

Important notes
Trial by jury as a solution for eminent domain has been agreed upon by 3 members (me, bingcrosby7 and bradley2000)

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:Current Issues
Judiciary - trial by jury, to what extent?

Important notes
Trial by jury as a solution for eminent domain has been agreed upon by 3 members (me, bingcrosby7 and bradley2000)

Shall we leave the guidelines for trial by jury to all cases that will result in the death penalty in addition to the condition as noted above?

View user profile
bingcrosby7 wrote:
KarbinCry wrote:This has been agreed upon:

1. Free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press and freedom of religion
2. Protection of a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case (as in the 5th amendment to the US constitution)
3. No man can own another (no slavery)
4. Right on ownership of property
5. Right for equal representation in government, regardless of gender, race or religion
6. Habeas corpus, including right to an attorney
8. The government, barring incarceration, cannot prohibit movement within or without the country.
9. Right to not be unduly prohibited to bear arms, meaning some restrictions can be put in place by Law, but not too prohibitive.

This has been agreed upon and forms the cornerstone of Constitution. Wording may and will change, after the first draft is finished, so that it is all in one style.

Well done, gentlemen; we now have a working Bill of Rights. From henceforth, the government will do all in its power to fully protect the rights of all natural born or naturalized citizens.

I, too, commend this voting body on it's noble work. Forgive me for my tardiness; it is difficult to re-establish a farm after it has been covered by asphalt.

View user profile
bingcrosby7 wrote:
KarbinCry wrote:Current Issues
Judiciary - trial by jury, to what extent?

Important notes
Trial by jury as a solution for eminent domain has been agreed upon by 3 members (me, bingcrosby7 and bradley2000)

Shall we leave the guidelines for trial by jury to all cases that will result in the death penalty in addition to the condition as noted above?

Hold, hold

Have we even decided weather the death penalty is even a thing?.

View user profile
What about a hybrid system? Juries may only ever declare a person innocent. Matters where they declare guilty are left to the judgement of the judge or magistrate?

View user profile
bingcrosby7 wrote:
KarbinCry wrote:Current Issues
Judiciary - trial by jury, to what extent?

Important notes
Trial by jury as a solution for eminent domain has been agreed upon by 3 members (me, bingcrosby7 and bradley2000)

Shall we leave the guidelines for trial by jury to all cases that will result in the death penalty in addition to the condition as noted above?

1) I am against death penalty, as there will always be errors, and even if one man is killed unjustly, this measure is immoral.
2) If we are to have death penalty, these are the cases I want trial by jury the least, as other murder cases; they are the most emotional of them all. If any cases are to be decided by jury, let them be "boring" - patent infringement, property disputes (but with non-local juries).

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 37]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 20 ... 37  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum