Amending the Constitution - Senate Powers

[Peter]

Defarge version

Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Authority Amendment[/u]

1. Article III Section 2 of the Constitution is hereby repealed.

2. No Court within the Forum, State, Regional or Federal, shall rule on a case unless the plaintiff shall have legal standing.

3. The Supreme Court shall be the sole body in the Forum with the authority to nullify or void federal laws.

4. The Supreme Court shall only be able to nullify or void a law in the event that the law explicitly contradicts the Constitution.

----

Supremacy of the Constitution and Federal Law Amendment[/u]

1. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. All other forms of law are inferior to it.

2. Amendments to the Constitution are for all intents and purposes a part of the Constitution.

3. All federal law passed by the Senate is superior to any law or Constitution of the various Regions and States, as long as the said law is authorised by the Constitution.

For a start that is mine, not DeFarge's. As I have already explained, I consider that these two amendments need to be passed independently of the Senate Powers Amendment. Theres an explaination of them on the AGs website.

I do not intend to weigh in too heavily on the Senate Powers Amendment because that is a political question more than it is a legal question, though I will of course help out where I'm asked to.

I implore the Senate to begin action on these two amendments as soon as possible, mostly because I am scared sh**tless that the Supreme Court can step in, without a case and without legal standing, and declare anything that it likes unconstitutional.

[Peter]

Please read my article justifying all parts of both amendments on the Office of the AG website.

HERE

It addresses all your concerns.

[Peter]

Well my two amendments have been sent of to Public Poll and the Senate appears to have ignored this thread for the past two days. Perhaps it would like to actually debate the provisions of the amendment so that all your pet projects can actually become law.

[Peter]

Apologies, I have as of yet not had enough time to debate these issues, I had a competitive debate on monday and have another tomorrow for which I have been doing a huge amount of research.

Its fine if a few Senators are busy for a couple of days and can't devote a plethora of time to the Senate business, but it is clear from the other board and from activity on some legislation in here that some Senators do not appear to be too tight on time. I wish they would just dedicate some time to this rather pressing concern - none of your legislation will have any effect if you pass it.

[Peter]

Well the PPT is the one to open debates and votes.

This is his thread and the way his original posts are worded would seem to suggest that the debate is open.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bonos amendment will have the following affect on statute:
The following are unconstitutional and will be permenantly struck:
1. Civil Unions Act
2. The Anti Drug Testing Act
3. Third Boss Abortion Act
4. The Death Penalty Abolition Act
5. The Health Care Reform Act of 2004
6. Marriage Equity Act
7. National Energy Act
8. Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act
Also in doubt:
1. Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004

In addition the Federal Activity Act is already unconstitutional via a different ruling that probably won't be dealt with under this ruling

Of legislation presently before the Senate, the following would be unconstitutional on its face:
1. Clean Energy Act
2. The Federal Unionization and Competitive Contracting Bill
In doubt:
1. The F-22 Bill

Of the legislation on the books, 9 or 10 of the 16 laws the Senate have passed will be permenantly struck. Of the bills presently before the Senate, 3 of the 4 are constitutionally suspect.

[Peter]

Well i'm no lawyer or anything so i wouldn't even know where to start. :/

Thats understandable. I am not willing to court political controversy by simply introducing raw drafts into the Senate of my own political wishes since I am meant to be a non-partisan legal advisor to the branches of government. However, if the Senate decides what powers it wants (i.e. what fields of policy it wants to control), then I will put into constitutional language for you guys to pass.

[Peter]

I would just like to correct my original advice on the Bono Amendment:
It does NOT render unconstitutional the Anti-Drug Testing Act.

The Ernest Amendment is probably the best in terms of maintaining Constitutionality, mostly because of its detail:
The following would be unconstitutional:
1. Boss Abortion Act [no abortion regulation clause]
2. Death Penalty Abolition Act [no regional sentencing restriction clause]
3. National Energy Act [the problem here is that clause 3 is a requirement on the Regions and also clause 8 is unauthorised spending]
4. Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004 [problem is that foreign aid that isnt for disasters of some kind is unauthorised; Clause (d) is an unauthorised requirement on the regions]

Other than that everything cuts constitutional muster.

Of the proposed legislation, only the Clean Energy Act would be unconstitutional.

As a note to Ernest I still oppose Section 1 Clause 17 on the grounds that we are only in need of one Court and an expansion of the Court system would be a joke in my opinion - its an elections sim not a judicial activism sim.

Fixing the problems with the two Energy Acts would require the Senate have the power to regulate national and regional energy policy, just so you know.

[Peter]

Surely, you didn't expect my proposal to make the Death Penalty Abolition Act constitutional, did you?

I suppose the death penalty will have its uses when I decide to hang you for your treason

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Missed that. Should be constitutional with that.

As for your other points - I would prefer not to be bending over backwards at this point to justify various pieces of legislation under the Constitution, they'll be plenty of time for that later when I have to defend legislation that is passed after this amendment.

[Peter]

With the Attorney General's assesment, I stand with other members of the Senate in support of Ernest's amendment.  We must put these amendments to the vote now in order to end the two weeks of frustration.

Does the Senate want to include clauses allowing it to:
1. Fund scientific research
2. Provide general foreign aid

I think these would both be good ideas personally (the first certainly)

If the Senates going to bring this to a vote then great.

[Peter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Promote perhaps?

[Peter]

Clause 27. To Suspend the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and to make provision for its Suspension by the executive when the Senate is not in session, but the Privledge shall be Suspended only when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Just to clarify Clause 27 for Texasgurl - when the Senate is in session, then only the Senate may suspend Habeas Corpus. When the Senate is not in session, the executive may suspend Habeas Corpus subject to rules defined by the Senate.

[Peter]

I would like this to come to a vote - if only to see it get voted down - now that we have at least some consensus on a version. Hopefully the VP or PPT can open voting.

[Peter]

My only reservation here is that if the Capital was to be relocated to some place that was seceded from Idaho, say, then under the Constitution it would be called the District of Colombia, and then we would have two DCs, which could create a degree of unnecessary confusion. Obviously the easiest solution is if they are the same place.