Step 4 – Judicial review

Figure 13-6

Consensus solutions approved by the citizens would be reviewed by the judicial branch as needed. The result of the review would be a judicial opinion. Judicial opinions would be cooperative, intended to help citizens make legal governing decisions. Therefore, if a new law were not legal, the judicial opinion would state the reason indicating the changes needed to make the law legal if it were possible. Justices would not be required to reword the law, but to explain the problems with the proposed law sufficiently to make the type of wording changes needed clear. Judicial opinions would be posted on the Citizen Governance Website for all to read.

If the solution was not legal for any reason, it could be modified to comply with the law by the Federal Council or by the participating citizens if possible. Simple wording changes could be made by the Federal Council, who would then resubmit the law for review. If aspects of the solution were not legal, then the Federal Council could return the issue to the previous step to make the needed modifications if possible. For example, the solution could be removed and perhaps the solution with the next highest vote would work. Or, perhaps part of the solution could be removed and parts from another solution added. In any case, citizens would be required to approve the revised solution to continue. Otherwise, the issue would fail to be solved.

Once approved by the judicial branch, the new law, policy, or other decision could not be challenged in court. The court already ruled and everyone had an opportunity to participate. Therefore, "participating" after the fact by lawsuit would not be legitimate. This would eliminate endless legal challenges by disgruntled groups tying up solutions in court for years.