Amendment#2 IT IS NOT THE SAME

MJW · January 23, 2003, 16:52

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 3 of the 5 Judges agree. This will be Article VI Clause 7.

Arnelos · January 23, 2003, 18:46

Wait a moment... isn't 3 out of 5 already the number of judges required to make a legal opinion about anything?

Sheik · January 23, 2003, 18:51

isn't 3 out of 5 already the number of judges required to make a legal opinion about anything

yep.

Togas · January 23, 2003, 19:47

Looks like amendments are pretty difficult to pass these days. Sorry, MJW, but this one pretty much states what the law presently is.

--Togas

notyoueither · January 23, 2003, 20:13

Originally posted by Sheik

Wait a moment... isn't 3 out of 5 already the number of judges required to make a legal opinion about anything?

yep.

errrrr... nope. Unless the meaning of quorum has been switched on me. 3 are required to participate in any decision, they do not have to be unanimous (2 could decide with 1 in dissent).

That's how I understood it.

Sheik · January 23, 2003, 20:15

You are right NYE. Though recently we have been ruling with all five judges. You could make a decision with two justices as long as two other justices didn't oppose the decision. Though that was never really clear. We never really had a situation (At least not that I can remember) were two justices said one thing and two others said another with the third not having an opinion.

notyoueither · January 23, 2003, 20:18

We always did (or tried to). It was courtesy to all members of the court that we waited a reasonable period to gather their opinions.

Unfortunately, there were times we could not get the required three together for some extended periods.

roadcage · January 23, 2003, 20:24

roleplay

I hereby request that our august legal system begin an investigation into the the growing tendency of otherwise prominent netizens to post meaningless Amendments to our grand constitution.

The Poll that is the thread starting post of this thread is best described as a feloneous act of Bandwidth Banditry. News loving people from every walk of life shudder at the sinister plot unfolding here in our own forums. Remember, a packet is a terrible thing to waste.

So why you may ask do I consume a valuable packet or two here against such an obvious ploy? And you are entitled to an explanation or three.

I do so in support of dial-up users in every corner of our shrinking world. The brave netizens who are trapped behind the limitations of POPS. For those of you who do not have a telephony background, this is an abbreviation for "Plain Old Phone Service".

I do so in support of the thousands of workers toiling in the service departments of the remanents of the ex monopoly formerly known as 'Bell'.

But most of all, I do this in a desperate attempt to allow humor to creep into our otherwise overly serious lives.

So, for now, please think of the packets.

/roleplay

civman2000 · January 23, 2003, 20:56

I was going to abstain because I thought that this would have no effect and would like to express my dsidain with all these little amendment proposals,, but then I saw nye's post and changed to NO.

Panag · January 24, 2003, 15:18

Originally posted by notyoueither
We always did (or tried to). It was courtesy to all members of the court that we waited a reasonable period to gather their opinions.

Unfortunately, there were times we could not get the required three together for some extended periods.

hi ,

,

, have two extra's on standby or so , .....

have a nice day