Amendment#2

[MJW]

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.

[Arnelos]

Fair enough.

[MJW]

bump

[MJW]

bump

[civman2000]

. There is no reason to take power away from the Court.

[Arnelos]

enough bumping... it's an ammendment vote, so it will be topped as long as it has a fair chance of passing.

[roadcage]

Is this an attempt to formalize what the spremes do on a regular basis, or an attempt to limit same by requiring a super majority?

It appears to be both. I am torn.

[MJW]

This is attempt to block people from appoiting juges based on this issue.

[civman2000]

Right now, it is established by previous decisions that the court can rule on the spirit of the law whenever it wants. Thus this clearly limits it and does not formalize any power that needs formalizing

[Aro]

Originally posted by civman2000
Right now, it is established by previous decisions that the court can rule on the spirit of the law whenever it wants. Thus this clearly limits it and does not formalize any power that needs formalizing

I agree with this. Could you post a link to that decision, please?
(I know, I'm too lazy to find it by myself... )

[ManicStarSeed]

I had to say Nay because 4 out of 5 is too restruictive. Leave that part out and it would have my vote.
Mss

[civman2000]

Aro: There was no decision that explicitly said it. However, several decisions used the principle of judging the spirit of the constitution (Case 5, Case 7, and Case 9 specifically come to mind)

[Aro]

Originally posted by civman2000
Aro: There was no decision that explicitly said it. However, several decisions used the principle of judging the spirit of the constitution (Case 5, Case 7, and Case 9 specifically come to mind)

Thanks, civman2000.

[jdjdjd]

This bill seems unnecessary.

[Meshelic]

Nay to this. Not necessary, like jdjdjd mentioned above.