Amendment#2

MJW · January 15, 2003, 19:15

Does this sound good? The Court, in its deliberations about an issue, can find a "spirit of the law" exception or interpretation to the printed wording of the law so long as 4 of the 5 Judges agree. This will be Article VI Clause 7.

Edited so it will not pass and not make a splatter on the court floor. Sinece this now has no chance of passing likes make it the theard were we talk about it.

MJW · January 15, 2003, 19:19

DO NOT POSTS SAYING STUFF ABOUT MY OTHER ACTIONS. THAT=FLAMEWAR MAKE OTHER THEARDS FOR THAT!!!!!

Togas · January 15, 2003, 19:22

You may want to have discussion on this amendment proposal first. That's what we've typically done in the past.

But this is a very interesting idea for discussion.

--Togas

Spiffor · January 15, 2003, 19:39

I agree with the spirit of the amendment, but I voted NO

I voted no, because the amendment is not ready to be voted yet, it lacks many things :
- proper spelling. I know it might sound ludicrous, but I think we'd have to amend with a 2/3 majority only to correct the spelling
- we don't know where in the constitution it will be put. Only the Senate can take such a decision, so this would lead to a new poll (although a completely stupid one)
- We didn't have any prepoll discussion on this, to refine the amendment, and make it the best possible before polling on it.

E_T · January 15, 2003, 19:45

Agreed, vote no so that this can go through the proper processes.

E_T

MrWhereItsAt · January 15, 2003, 19:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

I voted no, because the amendment is not ready to be voted yet, it lacks many things :
- proper spelling. I know it might sound ludicrous(my emphasis), but I think we'd have to amend with a 2/3 majority only to correct the spelling

Yep, that's the NewCon for you. No simplicity allowed.

Quote:

- we don't know where in the constitution it will be put. Only the Senate can take such a decision, so this would lead to a new poll (although a completely stupid one)
- We didn't have any prepoll discussion on this, to refine the amendment, and make it the best possible before polling on it.

Now these two are rather important points, the latter especially. A law must be debated first. This is why I vote no as well. However, MJW, start a discussion thread and I believe this has a great chance of passing.

MJW · January 15, 2003, 20:14

Does this sound good? The spirit of the law is more important then the law but, must be confirmed by 4/5 judges. This shall be placed on article IV and be clause 12.

MJW · January 15, 2003, 20:16

Sinece this now has no chance of passing likes make it the theard were we talk about it.

ManicStarSeed · January 15, 2003, 20:59

I think it is too restrictive.

How about simply adding...

"The court may make judgements based on the letter and spirit of the law."
and, I would add..
"The court may, at its discretion, consider RL issues in its deliberations"

Making a specific vote on"spirit or intent"will complicate issues. Just allow it as a consideration in debate and let it go from there.

Mss

MJW · January 15, 2003, 21:04

You mean 3-2 not 4-1

MJW · January 15, 2003, 21:05

Lets take a vote MSS or MJW! I vote me.

Togas · January 15, 2003, 21:38

I wouldn't place this in Art IV, which has to do with rights of and restrictions for citizens. I'd put this in Art III which deals with the Court or in Art VI which deals with conflicts of law.

I think what MJW means (correct me if I'm wrong) is that The Court, in its deliborations about an issue, can find a "spirit of the law" exception or interpretation to the printed wording of the law so long as 4 of the 5 Judges agree.

Right?

--Togas

Spiffor · January 15, 2003, 21:55

Togas :
It is what I understood, and what I agreed with

MJW : in this circumstance, I vote you. But I think TOgas' wording is better.

MJW · January 15, 2003, 22:26

I will do what Togas says.

WhiteBandit · January 15, 2003, 23:21

I'm not sure what you mean by "spirit of the law." You mean what was the original intent of the law that our forefathers created?

If so, the judges already do determine this when ruling on any issue.

Panag · January 16, 2003, 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Togas
You may want to have discussion on this amendment proposal first. That's what we've typically done in the past.

But this is a very interesting idea for discussion.

--Togas

hi ,

good point , .......

have a nice day

MJW · January 16, 2003, 19:25

How about this?

The Court, in its deliberations about an issue, can find a "spirit of the law" exception or interpretation to the printed wording of the law so long as 4 of the 5 Judges agree. This will be Article VI Clause 7.

MJW · January 17, 2003, 17:15

bump

WhiteBandit · January 17, 2003, 17:39

MJW,

I personally am still not sure what you are trying to accomplish? AFAIK, the justices do rule on the intent of a law if it is in question. Maybe I'm not seeing what you are trying to do. If not, please explain.

MJW · January 17, 2003, 18:40

If the intent of the law can override the law.

ManicStarSeed · January 17, 2003, 21:49

Quote:

Originally posted by WhiteBandit
MJW,

I personally am still not sure what you are trying to accomplish? AFAIK, the justices do rule on the intent of a law if it is in question. Maybe I'm not seeing what you are trying to do. If not, please explain.

Right now, the way it stands the court is hearing cases that are based in the letter of the constution (for example the 72 hr veto thing). The typical atrgument is that he letter of the law is supreme, the intent (or spirit) does not matter.
This would allow the spirit and intent to be considered.

Are you saying that the "intent of the law" is allowable under the New Con?

Mss

MJW · January 17, 2003, 21:56

yes, even if they rule in the intent this amendment can not hurt. (:

WhiteBandit · January 17, 2003, 22:07

MSS, yes. I believe that ruling on the intent of the law IS allowable under the New Con. I guess it would be beneficial to ask the justices what they feel on this issue. It looks like Togas actually approves of this ammendment, so I could be wrong.

Though Togas actually helped to write the New Con, so I guess we can ask him?

Does the New Con actually allow justices to rule on its intent.

MJW · January 17, 2003, 22:10

I will post the better amendment when court case 9 is done.

ManicStarSeed · January 17, 2003, 22:14

WB:
I just checked. Ther is nothing explicit regarding intent or spirit of the law. That is why something like this is helpful...

Mss

aleion · January 17, 2003, 22:31

Quote:

Originally posted by MJW
I will do what Togas says.

All Hail Togas!!!!!!!!!!!! King Of MJW's SOUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MJW · January 17, 2003, 23:15

I said that about the amendment, spammer