Amendment#2

[MJW]

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]

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

[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

[Spiffor]

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]

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

E_T

[MrWhereItsAt]

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.

- 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]

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]

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

[ManicStarSeed]

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]

You mean 3-2 not 4-1

[MJW]

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

[Togas]

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]

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]

I will do what Togas says.

[WhiteBandit]

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.