zLost
Citizen
Legal Affairs Department
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Oakridge Resident
zLost
eventcoordinator
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 543
- Thread Author
- #1
A
BILL
To
Amend the Judicial Fix Act and Amend the Constitution
The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:
BILL
To
Amend the Judicial Fix Act and Amend the Constitution
The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:
1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'No More Contradictions Act'.
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.
(3) This Act has been authored by Rep. zLost
(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Rep. xEndeavour
2 - Reasons
(1) Currently, the Judicial Fix Act and the constitution contradict each other.
(2) There should be parity between the time to appeal and statute of limitations.
(3) These contradictions must be fixed to prevent any confusion in the future.
(4) Clerks are considered Judicial Officers, even though the constitution defines Judicial Officers as Magistrates, Judges or Justices.
3 - Judicial Standards Act Amendment
Section 20 of the Judicial Standards Act (link) will be amended from:
20 - Appeals
(1) Once a court case is adjourned, either party may request to appeal the decision by filing an appeal in the court of the next tier. Once a case has been decided by the Supreme Court, it cannot be appealed.
(2) Requirements:--
- Less than one month has elapsed since the court’s decision;
- the appeal follows a format laid out by the courts in a thread that will be authored upon this bill’s passage; and
- the appeal is not made just for the sake of appealing.
To:
20 - Appeals
(1) Once a court case is adjourned, either party may request to appeal the decision by filing an appeal in the court of the next tier.
(2) Requirements:--
- Less than four months has elapsed since the court’s decision;
- the appeal follows a format laid out by the courts in a thread that will be authored upon this bill’s passage; and
- the appeal is not made just for the sake of appealing.
Section 26 of the Judicial Standards Act will be amended from:
26 - Judicial Officers
(1) The Supreme Court may appoint an unlimited amount of judicial officers to assist in the duties of the courts.
(2) These judicial officers will serve at the pleasure of the Supreme Court and can be removed at any time. In addition, Congress may at any time remove any judicial officer via the regular legislative process if they believe such a judicial officer has interfered with the functions of the branch.
(3) The following positions are considered judicial officers to the branch:
a. Court Clerk
To:
26 - Judicial Workers
(1) The Supreme Court may appoint an unlimited amount of judicial workers to assist in the duties of the courts.
(2) These judicial workers will serve at the pleasure of the Supreme Court and can be removed at any time. In addition, Congress may at any time remove any judicial workers via the regular legislative process if they believe such a judicial workers has interfered with the functions of the branch.
(3) The following positions are considered judicial workers to the branch:
a. Court Clerk
Section 18 of the Constitution will be amended from:
The Supreme Court of Redmont is the highest court in the nation, hearing all final appeals and challenges to removing a public office holder (see s19a(ii)). The Supreme Court is presided over by three Justices. The Supreme Court is chaired by a Chief Justice who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. There shall not be more than three (3) Justices (Chief Justice included) on the Supreme Court of Redmont at any given time. All available Justices preside over Supreme Court cases and form a majority opinion. Any Justices who do not agree with the majority opinion deliver individual or joint dissenting opinions which are published alongside the majority opinion. A minimum of two (2) Justices in agreement must be met to deliver a verdict on a Supreme Court case, and where there is a disagreement, the Chief Justice's opinion will prevail. The decision of the Supreme Court is final - there are no further appeals once a matter has been decided by the Supreme Court and the decision is binding on all other courts. A party can appeal a Supreme Court decision based on a point of law or if a significant amount of new evidence is made available. The appeal must convince the Court that the Justices that heard the original case made an error of law and that the error was of such significance that the decision should be overturned. Some examples of significant errors of law are that the Judge that heard the original case:
To:
The Supreme Court of Redmont is the highest court in the nation, hearing all final appeals and challenges to removing a public office holder (see s19a(ii)). The Supreme Court is presided over by three Justices. The Supreme Court is chaired by a Chief Justice who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. There shall not be more than three (3) Justices (Chief Justice included) on the Supreme Court of Redmont at any given time. All available Justices preside over Supreme Court cases and form a majority opinion. Any Justices who do not agree with the majority opinion deliver individual or joint dissenting opinions which are published alongside the majority opinion. A minimum of two (2) Justices in agreement must be met to deliver a verdict on a Supreme Court case, and where there is a disagreement, the Chief Justice's opinion will prevail. The decision of the Supreme Court is final and the decision is binding on all other courts. A party can appeal a Supreme Court decision based on a point of law or if a significant amount of new evidence is made available. The appeal must convince the Court that the Justices that heard the original case made an error of law and that the error was of such significance that the decision should be overturned. Some examples of significant errors of law are that the Judge that heard the original case:
Last edited:
