Case #10 -- Senate Chats

[Sheik]

I have no questions.

[jdjdjd]

I have no further questions.

[Togas]

If Justice Nimitz DOES NOT post a question within the next 2 hours this part of the trial thread will be closed. We will then proceed to CLOSING ARGUMENTS.

I ask that each party post their closing argument and once each has posted, this thread will be closed by me so that The Court can debate this matter and come to a speedy resolution.

--Judge Togas

[civman2000]

Closing Argument

First, I will address the problems with E_T's meeting and the laws created in it. First of all, the COnstitution specifies that to create a bill, one must "must post a poll." Although this is subject to the Court's interpretation, I believe that this means using the wonderful forum poll mexhanism that teh g0dz have provided us with. Second of all, although a vague idea of the items to be discussed were told sufficiently in advance, the deatils were not given until only shortly before, and thus there were far less than 72 hours during which "a poll that is clear, unbiased, states the proposed law in its entirety" had posted and could be voted on. Lastly, some of teh COnstitutional requirements were missing altogether, such as being titled "SENATE BILL" and having yea, nay, and abstain as the only choices.

NOw, I will explain why Thud's bill is unconstitutional. In theory, all of my above arguments except one only apply to specific Senate meetings and in future meetings they could be rectified. However, there is one argument that applies to any meeting. That is that all bills must be posted in polls. Thud's law authorizes bills that violate the constitution to have the power of law. It has been argued that because the Senate can create its own procedures, this is OK. However, I believe it is safe to tacitly assume that this would not include making procedures that violate the constitution, just as the fact that the Senate is given all powers not granted to other branches does not give them to make laws that change the constitution. Furthermore, "Senators may also propose motions, resolutions, orders, and decisions of the Senate" that have "the same authority as law." However, the Constitution also says that in order to have be laws, they must follow the same restrictions. Thus Thud's bill authorizes laws in violation of the COnstitution to have full power as laws, and it itself unconstitutional.

I suppose it could be argued that Thud's law only gives Senate meetings the same authority as law, but because every single one of te laws passed in the meeting would violate constitutional requirements, they would be declared void. I have no answer to this other than that this would clearly violate the spirit of the Constitution and that Thud's bill would be for all practical purposes unconstitutional in this case anyways.

I also have some arguments that deal not with the letter of the law, and perhaps not even the spirit. That argument is that the idea of Senate meetings violates the spirit of the Constitution (specifically "No citizen shall be denied the right to vote in a poll"). Those unable to attend the meeting are disenfranchised. Yes, I know that they can still send in absentee ballots, but my gut feeling is that this still violates the spirit though not the letter of this part of the COnstitution. My other argument is that if the Constitutional requirements I mentioned in the first paragraph were imposed on Senate meetings, they would be virtually useless. The whole point of creating Senate meetings was to facilitate quick decision-making during emergencies. If everything to be discussed and voted on must be posted in a thread titled SENATE BILL with all the information three days before, you might as well just use a normal bill becausethere will effectively be no difference. I note that uselessness does not make a law invalid. However, it is my opinion that the letter of the COnstitution (and the requirements of bills) is contrary to teh spirit of Thud's law, and thus because of COnstitutional supremacy Thud's law is void.

I rest my case.

[Thud]

That is that all bills must be posted in polls. Thud's law authorizes bills that violate the constitution to have the power of law. It has been argued that because the Senate can create its own procedures, this is OK. However, I believe it is safe to tacitly assume that this would not include making procedures that violate the constitution, just as the fact that the Senate is given all powers not granted to other branches does not give them to make laws that change the constitution. Furthermore, "Senators may also propose motions, resolutions, orders, and decisions of the Senate" that have "the same authority as law." However, the Constitution also says that in order to have be laws, they must follow the same restrictions. Thus Thud's bill authorizes laws in violation of the COnstitution to have full power as laws, and it itself unconstitutional.

I suppose it could be argued that Thud's law only gives Senate meetings the same authority as law, but because every single one of te laws passed in the meeting would violate constitutional requirements, they would be declared void. I have no answer to this other than that this would clearly violate the spirit of the Constitution and that Thud's bill would be for all practical purposes unconstitutional in this case anyways.

And I maintain that they were in fact posted in polls. I have admitted that the second poll, where 'yea, nay, abstain', were not choices, is invalid except as a suggestion. However, the first, I beleive, is a entirely legal poll, bill, and law. All were allowed to vote for 72 hours on it via absentee ballots.

And indeed, this means that there is effectively no difference between that chat poll and a regular threaded senate bill. And yes, that means that the chat was a near-useless failure. However, even you note that this does not make it invalid.

So, the chat used all the constituional requirements, and my bill gives no specific language or ideas that are contrary to the letter or indeed spirit of the Constitution.

[Togas]

This case thread is now CLOSED.

The Court will now deliborate and post our decision as soon as it is prepared.

--Judge Togas

[Togas]

Case #10: civman2000 v. Thud

Judges Involved: Togas, jdjdjd, Godking, Sheik. (Nimitz abstained)

Issue: Whether a law changing the polling procedures by the Senate is valid.

Facts: Thud proposed and the Senate passed a bill that allowed for "Senate Chats" that could take the place of posting Senate Bills on some issues, particularly issues that needed to be resolved quickly.

This bill will authorise decisions reached in any meeting of the Senate posted on the forum at least 24 hours in advance and meeting quorum to have all of the constitutional authority of a normal threaded Senate Bill.

This bill was proposed on 1/10/03. A "Senate Chat" was held a day later.

Senator civman2000 contends that:

Although the Constitution does not explicitly define what "posting a poll" means, it is a commonsense understanding that this refers to posting a new thread and using the poll tool available on this forum. The laws made under the said bill would not be/were not posted in a poll and therefore are invalid.
2. From Article II of the Constitution:

... (d) The poll must be open for at least 72 hours.

This argument only applies to the laws passed in the meeting that has been held already. Even in teh bills proposed counted as "polls," these polls were not open for 72 hours and thus are invalid. Note that the principle of a meeting is still legal in respect to this argument, but the meeting must be open long enough for all bills proposed to be voted on for 72 hours, and that would deny the whole point of such meetings, though legally they would be possible.

to which Thud responded (in summary):

A poll (the first) was posted at the chat, which was worded correctly, and the results were all a standard yea, nay, or abstain, collected by a member of the cabinet, and counted and verified by Justice Nimitz. ... the first bill ... is a clear instruction that the game must be continued in the very near future, and gives the cabinet authorization to take whatever action necessary to do so. The second poll is simply a suggestion to the cabinet on what that course of action should be.

That this is a clear case of the freedom of the Senate to make laws regarding their own procedure.

The poll was in fact open for 72 hours. There was certainly a 72-hour period in which absentee ballots could have been sent in to SMC E_T or Justice Nimitz. Everyone had the opportunity to vote. Obviously, had swift action been taken immediately after the chat, this would not be the case. However, this law had yet to be enacted and used until the time of this writing [1/14/03].

The matter was decided by Court Thead that was opened on 1/14/03 and closed on 1/19/03. This is the decision of The Court:

The Court wishes to state that the Senate has a right to control their own proceedings and procedures, and The Court will give the Senate the benefit of the law when questioning the Constitutionality of Senate procedural laws that have been lawfully passed. The Constitution is not meant to be a stumbling block to progress, nor does the Court wish to dictate to the Senate how they are to handle their affairs.

The Court finds that Art II, Sec 2(a) - (e) may also include "polls" taken in a Senate chat, so long as those "polls" are open to the people for a period of 72 hours by giving allowances for write-in votes for those who cannot attend. Such polls must also conform to quota.

The Court believes that the 72 hour requirement and quota requirements are there to protect the people, and these protections must not be infringed upon. However, "posting a poll" is merely stating the most common means that the Senate can be polled, and The Constitution is not requiring that only the Apolyton boards be used for this purpose.

That being said, The Court finds that the defendant's law does not conform to the Constitutional requirements as the law would make the waiting period only 24 hours, 2 days less than the Constitution mandates, and the law does not create a viable "write in" system to allow senators who cannot attend the meeting casting their votes in the "poll".

Therefore we find for the Plaintiff and nullify this law. As this law is nullified the laws and/or decisions made at the subsequent "Senate Chat" are void. The Court encourages the defendant to redraft this law for amendment consideration.
-- Judge Togas, Judge jdjdjd agrees, Judge Godking agrees, Judge Sheik joining but dissenting in part, Judge Nimitz abstains.

I must point out again, that Thud' bill was started 1/10, and was up for 72 hours. It was not passed until after the Senate chat and therefore can not apply to the Senate chat as no bill or law can apply retroactively. The bill does state "This bill expires in 72 hours", it does not violate the Constitution in that respect. It follows then that we must decide whether the Senate chat bills are valid or not. I think not for reason set forth above.
-- Judge jdjdjd concurring.

Although the constitution may not clearly define many terms I believe that posting a poll means using the forum's poll option in a new thread. A chat poll is not a thread poll and therefore I find that Thud's bill and all the laws passed subsequently are invalid.
-- Judge Sheik dissenting in part.

[civman2000]

I assume this case is now open for discussion (if not I will edit this). I would like to say that with the court having ruled 3-1 that a "poll" can be interpreted generally, i would have ruled in favor of Thud. Although the requirements for meetings set up in the bill did not meet those of the constitution, i believe it must then be assumed that the left out requirements apply anyways because of constitutional supremacy. Thus individual meetings that conformed with the bill but not the constitution would be illegal, but ones that did meet the constitutional requirements would be allowed.

Overall, though, I'm glad I won, even if for the wrong reason.

[jdjdjd]

civman,

We would have, however, we found his bill to not be clear. Questions surrounding the write ins, chat length, etc, need to be addressed in order to make sure all Senators are allowed the Constitutional 72 hours to vote-and make sure no one is disenfranchised.

jdjdjd

[DAVOUT]

I wonder what is the precise meaning of :

[I]The Court finds that Art II, Sec 2(a) - (e) may also include "polls" taken in a Senate chat, so long as those "polls" are open to the people for a period of 72 hours by giving allowances for write-in votes for those who cannot attend.[I]

I cannot see why this allowance is necessary if the poll last 72 hours. And if it is necessary because we want that the people unable to attend the meeting vote nevertheless, I would ask why we do not want the same thing for the polls posted on the Apolyton board. On the other hand, if people are unable to attend because accessing the chat room is not possible for whatever reasons which would not affect their presence on the Apolyton board, we can conclude that the equality of citizens is broken.

It seems to me that the Court is right in not limiting the polls to one system because there could be situations which would necessitate our shifting to another system, but that does not mean that several systems can be used in parallel. This is particularly true if a write-in system is organized for one type of poll, because such a system makes the quorum easier to meet.

I bet that the next attempt to obtain from the senate immediate decisions will be through proxies !

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I cannot see why this allowance is necessary if the poll last 72 hours. And if it is necessary because we want that the people unable to attend the meeting vote nevertheless, I would ask why we do not want the same thing for the polls posted on the Apolyton board. On the other hand, if people are unable to attend because accessing the chat room is not possible for whatever reasons which would not affect their presence on the Apolyton board, we can conclude that the equality of citizens is broken.

It seems to me that the Court is right in not limiting the polls to one system because there could be situations which would necessitate our shifting to another system, but that does not mean that several systems can be used in parallel. This is particularly true if a write-in system is organized for one type of poll, because such a system makes the quorum easier to meet.

I bet that the next attempt to obtain from the senate immediate decisions will be through proxies !

I disagree with your last line.... the reason: it would be pointless.

What's the point of posting that you'll hold a chat in 72 hours and hoping people either submit proxy votes or show up when you can just conduct an open poll?

AND, doesn't requiring people to submit proxy votes (to an as-yet unnamed collector or collectors of such votes) mean that we've done away with secret ballot? and does not it also mean that because the same problem applies when conducting a vote in a chat rather than on the forums, anonymity is lost there as well?

Not that losing anonymity when voting is necesarilly bad. The difference would I think depend on whether we're considering the voters more citizens (who may like their vote to remain safely anonymous) or senators (who, to remain publicly accountable, should expect that their vote be known).

But it's probably still the case that because of the logistical issues with doing a chat and the absolute nill difference in timing, this decision has essentially killed the only reasoning behind having such a chat (to reduce the time from 72 hours to some lower number).

Quite frankly, I'm glad that's the decision and even more glad that's the effect.

If people want to change the rules, put up a constitutional ammendment to reduce the number of hours from 72.

It's a toss up whether such an ammendment would pass by it remaining somehow unnoticed by the many lurkers and occassional visitors or whether all the lurkers would come out of the woodwork to vote against it (recognizing that they are the ones most likely to then be left out of decision-making).

What I'm most glad is that it will then be a political fight and not a legal fight. The Court has done an EXCELLENT job here of holding the written law and telling us if we want something different, we need to change what's written

[DAVOUT]

I was not really advocating proxies ...

Or are you betting against my bet ?