Chapter 10-III
The Judicial Branch


We all surely recognize that Democracy requires special considerations within the judicial functions of governance. Centuries of experience have proven that too much direct democratic control over the judicial function leads to tyrannical violations of the rights of minorities by controlling majorities.

To be consistently just, and especially in regards to the rights of minority opinions to dissent from majority opinions, the judicial function must have, especially at its higher levels, a considerable degree of independence from the will of the majority. A great deal of consideration must go into how this can be accomplished without creating a judiciary with too much power. Too much democratic control of the judicial function imparts the danger of a tyrannical majority. Too little raises the possibility of a tyrannical judiciary. The right dialectic balance must be found.

We believe that more democratic control is more appropriate at lower levels of the judicial hierarchy, since decisions emanating from these levels are subject to more levels of appeal and review at higher levels. Access to appeal at lower levels is more readily available, since lower population numbers at lower levels will generate fewer ‘cases’. We believe that more judicial independence is required at higher levels, to ensure a covenant of ‘blind’ justice for all.

We believe that the Judicial Branch should be organized into a hierarchy of Judicial Boards, with all the organization’s moderators serving as officers of these Boards within the various forums at every level.

We believe that forum moderators at the Local Group level should be directly elected by the citizen-members of each Local Group. Moderators at this level will be closely monitored by the District Judicial Board, through the avenue of appeal. (See our discussion of a prototype system of moderation in Chapter 9f). We believe that provisions should be made to stipulate that Local Group moderators whose decisions are overturned on appeal in excess of a set percentage of the time, (say somewhere in the 25-35% range), should be disqualified from their office by the District Judicial Board, with the Local Group being required to elect a replacement.

Forum moderators at higher levels should be selected according to procedures democratically established at each level.

At the Judicial Board levels, we think that ‘justices' should be appointed by the Executive Branch, subject to approval by the relevant Congress at each level. District Judicial Board justices should be appointed by the Coordinators of the District Advisory Councils, and approved by the District Congresses; State Judicial Board justices should be appointed by the Coordinators of the State Councils, and approved by the State Congresses, and National Judicial Board justices should be appointed by the President, and approved by the National Congress.

We think these should be ‘lifetime’ appointments, with justices to remain in office until they choose to resign, with specific measures provided for recall, if their decisions are not consistent with the organization’s accepted ethos, with additional provisions for impeachment for wrongdoing. Recall might require either a 75% majority in the relevant level Congress, or a 75% majority in a recall referendum, with provisions for either course to be binding, even lacking the other. Impeachment will require that formal charges of wrongdoing be brought, with a fair legal procedure, constitutionally defined to occur in the relevant level Congress, to judge guilt or innocence.

We think that the duties and powers of the Judicial Branch should include general proactive oversight of the proceedings of the other Branches, to ensure that they comply with established rules, procedures, and decorum, with secure covenants defined to ensure that these judicial oversight powers cannot be used to pursue political purposes.

As mentioned previously, we think that the approval of the relevant Judicial Boards, applying standards of constitutionality only, not political discretion or considerations, should be required for legislation passed by the various Congresses to take effect.

We think that the signature of a designated Judicial Board officer at each level should be required for key major disbursements of funds from the treasuries at each level. This gives the Judicial Branch, (lacking command of a ‘sheriff’, or other policing function), the ability to enforce its decisions. A covenant of restrictions must be defined to ensure that this ‘power of the purse’ can only be used for legal enforcement of judicial decisions, and not for political considerations.

A primary duty of the Judicial Branch will be to ensure freedom of speech throughout the organization’s communications network. While guarding freedom of speech, the Judicial Branch, through its officers, will moderate free speech within the responsible boundaries of civility, respect for the rights and dignity of others, and general responsibility to the organization’s established democratic culture, which defines objective standards of democratic behavior.

The various Judicial Boards will also moderate procedural and constitutional disputes that arise at their respective levels.


Previous Page..........................................Table of Contents..........................................Next Page