It definitely is possible but to be frank the resources for this (as in, people actually willing to do this) are slim, for now though, we do need as much help and support for the Constitutional Convention which would essentially be our steps towards the new and higher-quality governance you speak of.
2 Likes
Having practiced in a jurisdiction that does this, it doesnât really make anything better or more fun, it just is a thing that you do. Itâs more complex, but itâs not really more entertaining. I will never support any use of US law or the US Constitution in our jurisprudence, mainly because itâs all hot garbage. Imma be real witchu, the fucking teenage creators and maintainers of our Constitution had/have more foresight than the framers, and thatâs kinda sad. But I digress. And Ser, you legit randomly insert case law without any even inclination of counsel to mention said case law, which is nothing short of judicial activism, which I implore you to stop doing.
2 Likes
Something tells me if I get elected im going to be a huge wedge in this constitutional convention.
2 Likes
Judicial activism has existed ever since the creation of the judiciary, I would like to simply make that clear. While I am also not a fan of judicial activism, there is only so much Firestone provides in terms of precedential value, and counselors (from what Iâve so far seen) have argued. If I didnât take a foundational route in my decisions, I would quite literally be interpreting the law and handling issues presented in a case using my own dictum which is much worse than citing legal authorities provided by the aforementioned case law. If I want to properly adjudicate something, I have to sometimes take these measures to answer all the legal questions presented in a case.
Iâm hoping GRP v3 can bring some modernization to our current jurisprudence and expand the actual powers of the court (which a lot currently stand as vague or unmentioned in statutory law).
2 Likes
I donât think creating precedent for the community is worse then taking precedent that has no implication in firestone and applying it to firestone. We are a community based on a U.S state, correct, but with that we have our own laws, constitution, and values. That being said the first U.S judges, and judges over the years have had to do exactly what youâre saying is unethical to create the precedent you want to use. Thereâs 100âs of cases in FS to base precedent off of. Youâd just prefer to base it off of U.S precedent because you dislike the FS precedent. Yes, new laws require new rulings and precedent to be created. You cant pull precedent out of U.S law and say it holds weight here just donât work.
2 Likes
I never said U.S. case law holds weight here, Iâm simply using it to base my decisions. Other judges simply interpret the law themselves using what the actual law provides, etc.
2 Likes
And if youâre going to use laws that have no implication in firestone to dictate whatâs happening in the courts you might as well get rid of everything we (being the state and congress) have done over the last years to create lawâs a constitution, to revise said constitution. Youâre wanting to replace the entire constitution which will null essentially all precedent thatâs been laid on it already. But at the same time unwilling to create new precedent unless itâs based off of U.S law doesnât add up to me.
3 Likes
Those active constitutional precedents arenât forgotten; in fact we can simply embed them within the new constitution thus making them still active, only difference is that they are actually within the constitution and no longer something of precedential value. I only refer to U.S. case law to explain certain issues within a case and constitutional ambiguities such as cruel and unusual punishment (which is derivative from the U.S. constitution, mind you).
2 Likes
Just because things are derived from the real world, and from the United States doesnât mean whatâs written there and here are the same. Nor does it mean the interpretations or writing of said laws are the same as they were in the U.S law and courts. Thatâs the problem. How can precedent reflect on a document that is no longer existent if you repeal the constitution and replace it with an entirely new document how can you use rulings on another document as a reason for rulings on this new document. Might as well leave the constitution and try to add amendments.
2 Likes
Not all courts have the same idea or opinion on certain matters, obviously. Yes, not everything is the âsameâ per se but if they are nonetheless applicable there is nothing wrong with referring to such legal authorities. I never said the new constitution will repeal everything within the current one either, in fact most parts are either remaining the same or being slightly reworded, only a handful of parts are (planned, but not sure yet) to be completely revised (with the publicâs approval, of course).
2 Likes
But youâre going to completely remove the document and replace it as stated in the above post. Your own guideline to progression ends with the replacement of the entire document. The reality is OOC courts have a lot of different things to base decision making on, for one theyâre not a game and hold actual power. 2.) laws are all written differently then in firestone spurring a different ruling. 3.) Firestone has laws, precedent, and judicial case law that can be used in cases. As I said earlier, you just donât approve of that precedent created here in FS and donât want to apply it. Thatâs very clear, so set your own precedent stop using things that donât apply to FS in Firestone Courts.
2 Likes
What does FS provide on cruel and unusual punishment, in terms of what constitutes it? Please let me know.
2 Likes
Whatever has been ruled on by the judiciary, or at the discrepancy of the judges unless the legislature takes the time to write in specifically what constitutes cruel and unusual. If the precedent is yet to exist you have to set it, not take precedent from law that isnât written in FS or from cases that have no argument for or against them as far as Firestone law goes.
3 Likes
I asked you to find that since youâre claiming that FS does so in-fact provide precedential value to every topic within the constitution, this is simply contradictory to what youâve said previously.
Literally what I didâŚ
2 Likes
Itâs not my job as a citizen to go through the cases that have been done by the judiciary. But Iâm willing to bet most exist on topics youâre ruling on. As far as setting precedent, no youâre not setting precedent youâre citing things such as U.S cases as a reasoning for a ruling on a Firestone case. So no itâs not what youâre doing youâre taking precedent from cases uninvolved and using them to set precedent. What youâre doing is no different to me then someone taking case law from another ROBLOX community and using it here as a reason for rulings. Youâre citing cases that DO NOT EXIST in Firestone to rule on cases that do exist in firestone. Thereâs a large difference between that, and taking the time to set the precedent based off of what is written here in this community and its laws.
2 Likes
Of course, it isnât your job, but youâre the one making these claims sir. You obviously canât just turn back and say âactually, that isnât my job, so no I will not even try to substantiate my claims, thank you very muchâ. This basically makes your entire âFS precedentâ argument inconsistent and baseless.
What do you define as âsetting precedentâ then? If I canât cite useful legal authorities then how must I venture out and seek the remedy to the question of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, something that I will say again, is derivative from the United States.
Iâll also reiterate (again), I never said U.S. case law held any sort of binding authority within the Firestone courts. Obviously, if Iâm going to âset precedentâ on cruel and unusual punishment, I might as well let readers know where Iâm getting my information from (hence the citation of U.S. case law) which is what Iâm using to set the non-existent precedent of this obscure topic.
I understand what youâre trying to get at, but if you canât show me actual legal authorities that display some sort of usefulness in terms of, letâs say, the numerously mentioned cruel and unusual punishment, your argument is on thin ice my friend.
2 Likes
Hereâs an easy thought, cite the law and whatâs written in it. Donât pull cases out of your ass that have nothing to do with Firestone law, that have never considered Firestone law. U.S case law starts to hold binding authority when youâre citing it as the reason for a ruling. Once you do that, now itâs the job of every lawyer to go learn actual U.S Case law for firestone because its judges like referencing that instead of firestone law.
2 Likes
Please, embed that in your brain.
U.S. case law, just because I sometimes use it, doesnât mean it automatically becomes binding. How can I require that attorneys study U.S case law? That is a complete stretch that belittles your argument.
2 Likes
No itâs not, if a case is ruled on in a particular way specifically because of U.S Case law, now youâre showing the lawyers of Firestone if they donât know U.S case law it might be referenced on them by a judge even though it should hold no bearing here. Something tells me the cruel and unusual punishment clause wasnât added specifically because the United States has it. Even if it was, you donât use laws outside of Firestone to justify Firestone rulings. If U.S Case law is being used as the reason for decisions in cases youâre now telling lawyers they should know this stuff as you might cite it in a Firestone related case as youâve said you have no problems doing just that.
2 Likes
What laws outside of Firestone have I referred to, ever? I donât recall ever citing from the U.S. code, sir.
Please also explain the difference between how cruel and unusual punishment is taken within the F.S. bill of rights and how it is taken within the U.S. bill of rights, both of them simply mention the phrase âcruel and unusual punishmentâ. There is no differentiating factor here, unless you would like to (try) to display one.
2 Likes