Difference between revisions of "Court of Taijitu"
(+intro) |
|||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
|} | |} | ||
The '''Court of Taijitu''' is the sole judicial body of [[Taijitu]]. It is composed of three members, a chief justice who administers the Court's business and two associate justices who rule on cases alongside the chief justice. Currently only the office of chief justice is occupied. All justices are appointed through nomination by the [[Delegate of Taijitu|delegate]] and subsequent confirmation by the [[Senate of Taijitu|Senate]]. They serve until retirement or until removed by the Senate. The Court tries all criminal and civil cases under Taijituan jurisdiction, and arbitrates disputes between Taijituan citizens. The Court is also explicitly granted the power of judicial review by the [[Constitution of Taijitu]], and may strike down government acts or laws which it deems to be unlawful or unconstitutional. | The '''Court of Taijitu''' is the sole judicial body of [[Taijitu]]. It is composed of three members, a chief justice who administers the Court's business and two associate justices who rule on cases alongside the chief justice. Currently only the office of chief justice is occupied. All justices are appointed through nomination by the [[Delegate of Taijitu|delegate]] and subsequent confirmation by the [[Senate of Taijitu|Senate]]. They serve until retirement or until removed by the Senate. The Court tries all criminal and civil cases under Taijituan jurisdiction, and arbitrates disputes between Taijituan citizens. The Court is also explicitly granted the power of judicial review by the [[Constitution of Taijitu]], and may strike down government acts or laws which it deems to be unlawful or unconstitutional. | ||
| + | ==History== | ||
| + | The history of Taijitu's judicial system is not as storied as that of the other two branches of government. Its powers have remained effectively unchanged, while its structure has only varied slightly. The first judicial body of Taijitu under the region's original was the Supreme Court. There was no constitutionally mandated distinction between associate justices and and a chief justice responsible for administering the court, and the maximum number of justices was limited to nine. Its power to try civil cases and arbitrate disputes was not as explicitly stated as in the modern constitution, but in practice there was no difference. | ||
Revision as of 13:33, 1 August 2010
| Court of Taijitu | |
|---|---|
 | |
| History | |
| Formation | Constitution of Taijitu June 20, 2010 |
| Leadership | |
| Chief Justice | Gulliver |
| Structure | |
| Members | Gulliver |
| Selection | |
| Method | Delegate nomination with Senate confirmation |
| Term length | Life tenure |
| Meeting place | |
| Court forums | |
The Court of Taijitu is the sole judicial body of Taijitu. It is composed of three members, a chief justice who administers the Court's business and two associate justices who rule on cases alongside the chief justice. Currently only the office of chief justice is occupied. All justices are appointed through nomination by the delegate and subsequent confirmation by the Senate. They serve until retirement or until removed by the Senate. The Court tries all criminal and civil cases under Taijituan jurisdiction, and arbitrates disputes between Taijituan citizens. The Court is also explicitly granted the power of judicial review by the Constitution of Taijitu, and may strike down government acts or laws which it deems to be unlawful or unconstitutional.
History
The history of Taijitu's judicial system is not as storied as that of the other two branches of government. Its powers have remained effectively unchanged, while its structure has only varied slightly. The first judicial body of Taijitu under the region's original was the Supreme Court. There was no constitutionally mandated distinction between associate justices and and a chief justice responsible for administering the court, and the maximum number of justices was limited to nine. Its power to try civil cases and arbitrate disputes was not as explicitly stated as in the modern constitution, but in practice there was no difference.
