S.19.1-4: Judicial and Prosecutorial Reform Amendment - Ratified

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Judicial and Prosecutorial Reform Amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Wulfric
Originally proposed by Former Rep. Reactionary

Thread from last session: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=310245.0

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So this was originally proposed as a bill during the last session, it was re-designated as an amendment by UC, and then it got thrown to the wayside because the Comprehensive Amendment took priority and took until near the end of the session to be adopted. I have re-filed it so we can hopefully have a healthy debate about 1) Whether we actually need this amendment, and 2) If it is best to just tack it onto the end of the constitution or if there is a better place within the document to put it. I also invite Reactionary to this thread to present his current views on this amendment.

[tmthforu94]

This could probably be added to the judicial portion of the constitutional amendment. That being said, I worry about the necessity of this since the Governor doesn't post prosectors in-game.

[tmthforu94]

So where are we at on this? Anyone else have thoughts?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

does our Judicialist have any comment?

[alancia]

Since we started the new session, I think this should be debated and voted on. Looks like a solid bill for me.

[tmthforu94]

This could probably be added to the judicial portion of the constitutional amendment. That being said, I worry about the necessity of this since the Governor doesn't post prosectors in-game.

I'm just going to re-iterate this. Before proceeding to a vote we do need to amend this to specify where in the Constitution it will go. Based on how our constitution is set up, probably the bottom of Article VI would be best. So something like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll let someone with more expertise weigh in, but I don't think you should mandate that one part of the constitution has to overrule another part? I struck that sentence.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This could probably be added to the judicial portion of the constitutional amendment. That being said, I worry about the necessity of this since the Governor doesn't post prosectors in-game.

I'm just going to re-iterate this. Before proceeding to a vote we do need to amend this to specify where in the Constitution it will go. Based on how our constitution is set up, probably the bottom of Article VI would be best. So something like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll let someone with more expertise weigh in, but I don't think you should mandate that one part of the constitution has to overrule another part? I struck that sentence.

It would be necessary if we were tacking it onto the end of the constitution, in the event that it contradicted something within Article IV. But I don't think it's necessary if we're simply adding it to Article IV.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Members have 24 hours to object to the amendment offered by the Speaker.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The amendment is adopted. Motion for a final vote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

no objection.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

A final vote has started. Pursuant to the Constitution, a 2/3 majority vote is required. Please vote AYE or NAY.

Aye

[alancia]

Aye

[CMB222]

Aye

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Aye

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Vote will be closed in 16 hours or when all members have voted.

[TheSaint250]

Aye

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The amendment passes on a vote of 5-0