# Full Bench Trial Amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** The Magisterium\ **Tags:** amendment\ **Created:** [March 9, 2025, 6:52am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836 "2025-03-09T06:52:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 6:52am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/1 "2025-03-09T06:52:55Z")
Article C: Judicial, Section 1: Establishment & Organization 1. This Concordat does hereby invest judicial power in the Conclave, which shall be the interpreter of this Concordat and the judge and jury of Residents. 2. The Standing Orders of the Conclave shall be considered legally binding within the Conclave, unless contradicted by this Concordat or statutory law. 3. The Conclave shall be composed of five Arbiters, which shall not serve concurrently as the Delegate or as a Magister. 4. The Conclave shall decide on matters before it by majority vote of all Arbiters. ---
**Author:** ![Virgolia](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/v/90ced4/32.png) [@Virgolia](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Virgolia)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 7:09am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/2 "2025-03-09T07:09:38Z")
I support this amendment ---
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 6:36pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/3 "2025-03-09T18:36:18Z")
I don’t support this. It’s often the case Arbiters need to take a LOA or may miss a matter - but if one Arbiter is missing but 4 vote then I don’t see why a decision is invalid or must be postponed. If this issue is with trials, then it should be specified to trials since the current ssytem works well for most things. ---
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2025, 7:39pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/4 "2025-03-09T19:39:39Z")
How about: “Any decision of the Court must be made by a majority of Arbiters” instead? Also btw the current system does this for judicial review already iirc ---
**Author:** ![Acronis](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/acronis/32/11376_2.png) [@Acronis](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Acronis)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2025, 4:39pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/5 "2025-03-11T16:39:54Z")
I am in strong support of this amendment. My preference is for the full court, rather than a majority. Perhaps in addition to “who have recused due to a significant conflict of interest” there can be “or those who are excused on a Leave of Absence” or something to that effect. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c1fc1f63483989cc6a5c92e407789a95bd080bca.png) [@system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2025, 1:08am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/6 "2025-03-16T01:08:39Z")
---
**Author:** ![system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c1fc1f63483989cc6a5c92e407789a95bd080bca.png) [@system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2025, 2:14am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/7 "2025-03-25T02:14:41Z")
---
**Author:** ![Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/bachtendekuppen/32/12984_2.png) [@Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Bachtendekuppen)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2025, 6:47pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/8 "2025-03-28T18:47:13Z")
How does “a significant conflict of interest” relate to Article C, Section 5 (2nd), point 5 of the Concordat? > [@The Concordat of The East Pacific](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/the-concordat-of-the-east-pacific/16243/1): > > Any Arbiter with substantial prior involvement with a matter that goes to trial must recuse themselves from said trial. And why the “Court” here, and not “Conclave” as throughout this Section? And doesn’t “unless contradicted by Statutory Law” go against the principle that Statutory law can’t contradict the Concordat? And what do we do if one Arbiter is on LOA? Halt all decisions until the LOA is over? ---
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 4:33pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/9 "2025-03-29T16:33:02Z")
> [@Bachtendekuppen](#): > > And doesn’t “unless contradicted by Statutory Law” go against the principle that Statutory law can’t contradict the Concordat? No because the Concordat can designate something to be resolved in statute – something it does in a couple places, chiefly A.4.3. “Further exceptions to this power may be defined in law.” And it doesn’t “contradict” the Concordat in a legal sense if the Concordat empowers it to, only in a practical/semantic sense. For the other things, like the “significant coi” rather than “substantial prior involvement”, “Court” instead of “Conclave” and LOA, I think that’s a failure to think through my wording. How does this sound: “All Arbiters shall participate in all decisions made by the Conclave, unless contradicted by Statutory Law, with the exception of Arbiters who have recused or taken leave of duties as defined in the Standing Orders of the Conclave.” ---
**Author:** ![system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c1fc1f63483989cc6a5c92e407789a95bd080bca.png) [@system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2025, 3:58am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/10 "2025-04-08T03:58:24Z")
---
**Author:** ![system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c1fc1f63483989cc6a5c92e407789a95bd080bca.png) [@system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2025, 4:16am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/11 "2025-04-14T04:16:50Z")
---
**Author:** ![system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c1fc1f63483989cc6a5c92e407789a95bd080bca.png) [@system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2025, 4:52am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/12 "2025-04-20T04:52:01Z")
---
**Author:** ![system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c1fc1f63483989cc6a5c92e407789a95bd080bca.png) [@system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2025, 5:37am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/13 "2025-04-26T05:37:22Z")
---
**Author:** ![AC5230](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/ac5230/32/11489_2.png) [@AC5230](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/AC5230)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2025, 12:45am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/14 "2025-04-28T00:45:43Z")
> [@Mangegneithe](#): > > “All Arbiters shall participate in all decisions made by the Conclave, unless contradicted by Statutory Law, with the exception of Arbiters who have recused or taken leave of duties as defined in the Standing Orders of the Conclave.” I’m not Bach, but I, myself, don’t see a problem with this. I think such a clause establishes what we’re looking for with relative ease and concision. ---
**Author:** ![Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/bachtendekuppen/32/12984_2.png) [@Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Bachtendekuppen)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2025, 8:13am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/15 "2025-04-28T08:13:50Z")
It’s better, but do we _want_ to empower the Magisterium explicitly like this to regulate how many Arbiters should be involved in which decisions? ---
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2025, 4:47am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/16 "2025-05-03T04:47:41Z")
I mean…I think so. It’s similar to the United States and I really don’t see how it could be abused. Also follows the principle of keeping the Concordat simpler while allowing for nuance in statute. I’m open to alternative opinions, though. ---
**Author:** ![Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/bachtendekuppen/32/12984_2.png) [@Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Bachtendekuppen)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2025, 7:39am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/17 "2025-05-03T07:39:46Z")
Why, if at all really, not simply something like this: > The Conclave shall decide by majority vote of all current Arbiters. ---
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2025, 7:58pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/18 "2025-05-03T19:58:49Z")
I think there was a problem with LOA so maybe: “The Conclave shall make decisions by a majority vote of all **active** Arbiters.” (emphasis mine) ---
**Author:** ![system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c1fc1f63483989cc6a5c92e407789a95bd080bca.png) [@system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 7:07am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/19 "2025-05-08T07:07:14Z")
---
**Author:** ![Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/bachtendekuppen/32/12984_2.png) [@Bachtendekuppen](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Bachtendekuppen)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 12:25pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836/20 "2025-05-08T12:25:37Z")
I’m not sure I agree we should have that leniency on LOA. I don’t want cases to be decided by 2 Arbiters because 3 of them are LOA, and cases take long enough that a short LOA should not be a problem. [Next page](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/full-bench-trial-amendment/18836.md?page=2)