Amend power of Inquisition - Revision history

Matt: Text replacement - "Synod" to "Synod"

2026-01-16T09:37:39Z

Text replacement - "Synod" to "Synod"

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:37, 16 January 2026
Line 22:		Line 22:

	===Constitution===		===Constitution===
	The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the [[Senate motion]]. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not explicitly mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the [[Senate]] wish the [[~~Synod\|~~Synod]] to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquisition, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.		The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the [[Senate motion]]. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not explicitly mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the [[Senate]] wish the [[Synod]] to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquisition, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.

	In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.		In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.

Matt: Text replacement - "Senate" to "Senate"

2026-01-15T22:25:16Z

Text replacement - "Senate" to "Senate"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:25, 15 January 2026
Line 22:		Line 22:

	===Constitution===		===Constitution===
	The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the [[Senate motion]]. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not explicitly mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the [[~~Senate\|~~Senate]] wish the [[Synod\|Synod]] to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquisition, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.		The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the [[Senate motion]]. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not explicitly mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the [[Senate]] wish the [[Synod\|Synod]] to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquisition, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.

	In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.		In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.

Matt: Text replacement - "[[Imperial Senate" to "[[Senate"

2026-01-15T12:30:44Z

Text replacement - "[[Imperial Senate" to "[[Senate"

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:30, 15 January 2026
Line 22:		Line 22:

	===Constitution===		===Constitution===
	The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the [[Senate motion]]. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not explicitly mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the [[~~Imperial~~ Senate\|Senate]] wish the [[Synod\|Synod]] to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquisition, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.		The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the [[Senate motion]]. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not explicitly mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the [[Senate\|Senate]] wish the [[Synod\|Synod]] to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquisition, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.

	In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.		In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.

Matt: Text replacement - "[[Imperial Synod" to "[[Synod"

2026-01-15T12:30:34Z

Text replacement - "[[Imperial Synod" to "[[Synod"

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:30, 15 January 2026
Line 22:		Line 22:

	===Constitution===		===Constitution===
	The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the [[Senate motion]]. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not explicitly mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the [[Imperial Senate\|Senate]] wish the [[~~Imperial~~ Synod\|Synod]] to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquisition, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.		The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the [[Senate motion]]. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not explicitly mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the [[Imperial Senate\|Senate]] wish the [[Synod\|Synod]] to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquisition, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.

	In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.		In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.

Twiggy at 13:32, 8 September 2025

2025-09-08T13:32:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:32, 8 September 2025
Line 22:		Line 22:

	===Constitution===		===Constitution===
	The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the [[Senate motion]]. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not explicitly mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the [[Imperial Senate\|Senate]] wish the [[Imperial Synod\|Synod]] to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an ~~inquistion~~, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.		The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the [[Senate motion]]. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not explicitly mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the [[Imperial Senate\|Senate]] wish the [[Imperial Synod\|Synod]] to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquisition, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.

	In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.		In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.

RichardRaynor at 12:13, 2 February 2022

2022-02-02T12:13:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:13, 2 February 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[Category:Senate Motion]][[Category:380YE Autumn]]
			__NOTOC__
	<ic>The Senate to create the powers detailed by Jorma Steelhail in his Statement of Principle within the Synod during Winter 379 summit.		<ic>The Senate to create the powers detailed by Jorma Steelhail in his Statement of Principle within the Synod during Winter 379 summit.

Line 28:		Line 30:
	===Campaign Outcome===		===Campaign Outcome===
	* The Imperial civil service are updating the procedures for the Synod to encompass the new options now allowed under [[Imperial law]] following this motion.		* The Imperial civil service are updating the procedures for the Synod to encompass the new options now allowed under [[Imperial law]] following this motion.

	~~[[Category: Senate Motion]]~~

Matt at 00:03, 30 March 2017

2017-03-30T00:03:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:03, 30 March 2017
Line 20:		Line 20:

	===Constitution===		===Constitution===
	The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the [[Senate motion]]. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the [[Imperial Senate\|Senate]] wish the [[Imperial Synod\|Synod]] to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquistion, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.		The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the [[Senate motion]]. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not explicitly mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the [[Imperial Senate\|Senate]] wish the [[Imperial Synod\|Synod]] to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquistion, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.

	In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.		In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.

Matt at 00:02, 30 March 2017

2017-03-30T00:02:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:02, 30 March 2017
Line 20:		Line 20:

	===Constitution===		===Constitution===
	The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the Senate motion. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the Senate wish the Synod to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquistion, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent is ~~not~~ legally binding.		The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the [[Senate motion]]. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the [[Imperial Senate\|Senate]] wish the [[Imperial Synod\|Synod]] to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquistion, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.

	In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.		In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.

Matt at 00:01, 30 March 2017

2017-03-30T00:01:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:01, 30 March 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<ic>The Senate to create the powers detailed by Jorma Steelhail in his Statement of Principle within the Synod during Winter 379 summit.		<ic>The Senate to create the powers detailed by Jorma Steelhail in his Statement of Principle within the Synod during Winter 379 summit.

	These powers are the ~~Judgements~~ of Castigation, Vindication and Penance. The intent of these powers are to conclude and proclaim the outcomes of Inquisition that cannot be ~~reasonable~~ included under Condemnation.		These powers are the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance. The intent of these powers are to conclude and proclaim the outcomes of Inquisition that cannot be reasonably included under Condemnation.

	The powers of Castigation, Vindication and Penance are escalated from Inquisition in the same manner as Condemnation and the powers ~~are~~ responsibilities are detailed below:		The powers of Castigation, Vindication and Penance are escalated from Inquisition in the same manner as Condemnation and the powers and responsibilities are detailed below:

	* Castigation: The target is believed by the Assembly to be guilty of Unvirtuous deeds and nature and is formally rebuked.		* Castigation: The target is believed by the Assembly to be guilty of Unvirtuous deeds and nature and is formally rebuked.
Line 18:		Line 18:
	===Date===		===Date===
	* Autumn 380YE		* Autumn 380YE

			===Constitution===
			The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the Senate motion. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the Senate wish the Synod to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquistion, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent is not legally binding.

			In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.

			<box>OOC Note: It is not completely clear if the Conscience intended to allow the Synod to submit the new judgements without first submitting an inquisition, but we have ruled that the new judgements must follow exactly the same rules as condemnation in the interests of keeping a simple set of rules that players have the best possible chance to understand.</box>

	===Campaign Outcome===		===Campaign Outcome===

Matt at 18:51, 26 March 2017

2017-03-26T18:51:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:51, 26 March 2017
Line 19:		Line 19:
	* Autumn 380YE		* Autumn 380YE

			===Campaign Outcome===
			* The Imperial civil service are updating the procedures for the Synod to encompass the new options now allowed under [[Imperial law]] following this motion.

	[[Category: Senate Motion]]		[[Category: Senate Motion]]