The Constitutional Convention (Completed)

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye

[Purple State]

Sorry for the absence. School work has been kicking me around a bit this week as the holidays come around.

With 3 ayes, 0 nays and 3 non-votes, the preliminary document passes. There will now be debate until Saturday night, as I will be on leave until then due to the holidays. Please introduce all amendments in that time (does anyone want to write up Badger's idea?).

[Purple State]

Alright I have two proposed amendments. There will be 24 hours of debate, followed by a vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Becomes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And then these two changes go together:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Becomes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Becomes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

The first amendment sounds fine, but as for the second... Why a fourth justice? I think an odd number is preferable to avoid ties, no?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm a bit puzzled by that change as well.

[Purple State]

The second amendment is sponsored on behalf of Badger and is not something I particularly support. But seeing as I favor an open and inclusive process, I thought it proper to put his suggestion into an amendment and put it up before the Convention.

As for the possibility of ties, I tried to word it so that there can only be a maximum of 3 justices hearing any one case, though I may have failed to take into account non-criminal trials that are heard immediately before the entire Court.

[ilikeverin]

Right.  That's going to complicate matters.  I also wonder whether there is enough activity in the courts to justify four Justices rather than three.

[Purple State]

Not to mention I tend not to be in favor of expanding the number of positions in the game, as it reduces competition in elections.

[bgwah]

Even ignoring the tie issue, three seems like the right number of justices to me.

[Purple State]

The following two amendments are now brought to a vote. Please vote aye, nay or abstain or some discernible version (as always, ILV).

Vote is open for 48 hours or until a majority is reached:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Becomes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And then these two changes go together:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Becomes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Becomes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

Aye
Nay

[Badger]

For clarification's sake:

Alternatives to the status quo include:

Creating a fourth justice and having federal trials heard by one of the justices who wouldn't rule on an appeal. If desired, only 3 of the 4 justices could rule on case that aren't appealed from trial to avoid recurrent tied decisions, with the odd justice out in any given case either chosen randomly by the CJ or by rotating assignment. (How does the CJ assign trial judges now, CJ Spade? Volunteers? Rotation? Names from a hat?).

Alternatively, the Supremes/CJ could temporarily appoint someone to preside over a particular trial, leaving the Supremes to hear any appeal. It should be allowed that such temporary appointment would not constitute an "office" requiring resignation of any current position, much like being a delegate to this Convention.

I suppose appeals could simply be left to the remaining two Justices, but the high likelihood of 1-1 ties makes that prospect unappealing, IMHO.

With any plan I think we should avoid rotating assignments to keep plaintiffs from "forum shopping" for the right judge, but I'm not picky about the details. The point here is its unfair for a trial judge to participate in deciding an appeal of their trial, as any appeal by definition accuses the trial judge of error.

Note bolded section.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.
Nay.

[ilikeverin]

[Badger]

Can't blame the Convention for its vote. In all honesty I would've much preferred the alternative of leaving federal trials to a rotating or randomly pulled name from a list of legal beagle volunteers (Peter, Junkie, myself, Bullmoose, etc.) to hear an individual case at trial and thereby leave all 3 Supremes able to hear any appeal without bias. I just threw the 4th justice idea out there for completeness, but also find it a lesser plan than a rotating system of trial judges.

Mind you, I still think the idea of one-third the Supreme Court ruling on its own conduct as trial judge is an awfully unfair shortcoming in our judicial system.

[Ebowed]

Aye,
Nay.

[afleitch]

Aye on the First
Nay on the Second

[Bacon King]

aye and abstain.

[Purple State]

By a vote of 6-0 the first amendment passes.

By a vote of 5-0-1 the second amendment fails

I now bring the following version of Article III to a final vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain, etc. Vote lasts for 48 hours, etc.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[Ebowed]

Aye

[bgwah]

aye

[ilikeverin]

[Purple State]

By a vote of 4-0 Article III has passed.

I now present the preliminary Article IV for 48 hours of discussion before a vote. Please propose any noncontroversial amendments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

For...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is assumed that this may only be done with the consent of the region in question, correct? I know one of the other clauses would imply that, but just for clarification.