Public Review of the New Article Three Draft

As many of you may be aware, I have been drafting a complete revision of Article III of the Constitution; now that it has had extensive review and commentary by the legal community, and I have completed my proof reading, I feel it’s time to release it to the public and get your commentary before having the legislature propose it! If you spot a grammatical error or something, please tag me in your reply.

Notable changes:

  1. Altered number of judges on each court
  2. Tweaked SC jurisdiction
  3. Established some cool writs
  4. SC makes rules of procedure and the legislature confirms them
  5. All warrants require an oath of affirmation and a better statement of facts and evidence
  6. SWs more clearly (they already did require this but now I spelled it out) require PC of not just a crime, but that the place/person to be searched has contraband, evidence, etc. from that crime
  7. AWs are capped at one hour in prison now, and essentially have a double jeopardy protection in them
  8. Court orders better defined by category
  9. State can no longer appeal in criminal cases unless they were subject to prejudicial misconduct
  10. A verdict of not guilty in criminal court is absolute
  11. Trial by jury is no longer an option for civil cases following the results of this poll

still waiting on the public review of your mother

but very well done


“The judicial power shall extend to actual cases involving parties who are all citizens of the state…”

So does this mean the State can’t pursue criminal charges against a tourist?

Additionally, say you’re a citizen and find out that the DOJ is going to take you to court. In order to avoid this you get rid of your citizen badge as well as leave the group. Would this make it where they can’t get convicted?


“If an individual is on legitimate leave of absence, they cannot be penalized for failing to comply with a subpoena that contradicts the time period of that leave.”

How would this be defined? Could a LOA be infinite?

1 Like

clone please confine your review into one reply, if necessary use a --- (on its own line) to separate sections of a post


This is literally the same line from the original, and given LOA is well defined in law, common law, and various policies throughout the state, I feel it’s pretty well covered


Changed to “persons subject to the jurisdiction of the state.”


“There shall also be a right to appeal convictions for contempt of court…As the only appellate court in the State, the Supreme Court of Firestone’s judgment on any appeal is final”

If you get contempt in the Supreme Court, how would you go about appealing it as the decision of contempt would of been passed by the supreme court already?

1 Like

Everything else looks really good. Great job Danny!


The same thing you do now, and the same thing you’d do irl: cry about it.


“1. Except in ex parte and criminal proceedings, a party bringing forth a suit must have sustained an injury-in-fact and prove its causation to hold standing in the suit.”

  • would remove or alter to allow for direct sc petitions for valid legal questions

" The Chief Court Justice may nullify any warrant as they see fit, so long as the justification for such (which must be noted on/with the warrant) is not otherwise unlawful, such as corruption."

  • please remove this, allow the person to appeal via normal means, allows for opportunities for abuse

" While the State’s legal system shall always be transparent and open to the public, this does not preclude judges or justices from sequestering jurors or witnesses when the need arises in an effort to ensure a fair trial."

  • impossible to enforce

also please remove the oath of office, its cringe and we don’t need it…


rest looks good

but would extend the jurisdiction of the court to those who are tourists/non citizens so someone can’t just leave the group then BAM no more case




don’t limit the State’s ability to appeal, what if @Skye_Jones does another DODGY interpretation?!?!?!?!?
(being sarcastic obvs)




No, that clogs up the docket with bullshit and annoys me. You shouldn’t just be able to ask the SC any random hypothetical you want at any time. Sustain an injury in fact or demonstrate you will, nerd

It’s worked ok for like, five years now


  • I don’t care if it annoys you. If you don’t want to do it then don’t - it’s up to congress at that point to fix via impeaching you. Anyways, It’s been one of the main tasks of the court and helped settle disputes for years so I recommend keeping it.

  • Just because it works doesn’t mean it’s always good. It opens up the possibility for easy abuse. But, if it really was abused I’m sure the community would dog pile that CCJ so I guess it’s fine to leave.

  • it’s impossible for a court to properly sequester someone because they can easily switch between discord servers, etc… plus also get DMs… so it’s not effective.


Could you just allow this and if it isn’t good just deny the writ? Making it where you have to go to the DC makes it where interpretations will take even longer to be developed and released as it will take the standard time right now plus the new preliminary time of going through the District Court.


cool but sequesters still need to legally happen to minimise the possibility, and that needs to be enabled by constitutional law


@DannyboyJurist demanding your immediate recusal :triumph: